On Wed, 4 May 2022 20:27:04 GMT, lennartfricke wrote:
> Provide micro-benchmark for comparison
Looks good to me.
-
Marked as reviewed by naoto (Reviewer).
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8542
On Wed, 4 May 2022 20:27:04 GMT, lennartfricke wrote:
> Provide micro-benchmark for comparison
The speedup is roughly 1.6.
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8542
On Fri, 6 May 2022 22:02:58 GMT, Stephen Colebourne
wrote:
> Seems reasonable to me. plus(long, long) already has this optimisation.
If it already had this optimization then why change anything? I think you're
referring to the check for `0` to return `this` then that is something
`plusSeconds
On Wed, 4 May 2022 20:27:04 GMT, lennartfricke wrote:
> Provide micro-benchmark for comparison
Marked as reviewed by redestad (Reviewer).
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8542
On Wed, 4 May 2022 20:27:04 GMT, lennartfricke wrote:
> Provide micro-benchmark for comparison
Seems reasonable to me. plus(long, long) already has this optimisation.
-
Marked as reviewed by scolebourne (Author).
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8542
On Wed, 4 May 2022 20:27:04 GMT, lennartfricke wrote:
> Provide micro-benchmark for comparison
Hi, thanks for the contribution!
How big a speed-up are you observing?
Keeping the optimization in `plusSeconds` rather than moving it to `plus(long,
long)` means expressions like `instant.plusMil
On Wed, 4 May 2022 20:27:04 GMT, lennartfricke wrote:
> Provide micro-benchmark for comparison
Hi, please send an e-Mail to dalibor.to...@oracle.com so that I can mark your
account as verified.
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8542
Provide micro-benchmark for comparison
-
Commit messages:
- 8286163: micro-optimize Instant.plusSeconds
Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8542/files
Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk&pr=8542&range=00
Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-82
