On Mar 17, 2014, at 9:57 PM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
> Am 17.03.2014 17:08, schrieb mark.reinh...@oracle.com:
>> 2014/3/17 1:41 -0700, paul.san...@oracle.com:
>>> On Mar 15, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
...
I more like the given style with less spaces:
3854
Am 17.03.2014 17:08, schrieb mark.reinh...@oracle.com:
2014/3/17 1:41 -0700, paul.san...@oracle.com:
On Mar 15, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
...
I more like the given style with less spaces:
3854 for (int i=0; i
Subjectively that irritates my eyes :-) non-subjectively i
Am 17.03.2014 17:36, schrieb Paul Sandoz:
Hi Sergey,
Thanks, you are right! I did not realize it copied the array into a local
variable, but that makes sense.
Here is the byte code generated by javac (9) for two different methods:
.
Thanks from me too, this is great work.
I floated my q
Hi Sergey,
Thanks, you are right! I did not realize it copied the array into a local
variable, but that makes sense.
Here is the byte code generated by javac (9) for two different methods:
void x() {
for (Object o : a) {
System.out.println(o);
}
}
0
2014/3/17 1:41 -0700, paul.san...@oracle.com:
> On Mar 15, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> I more like the given style with less spaces:
>> 3854 for (int i=0; i> It better visualizes the 3 parts of the for statement.
>>
>
> Subjectively that irritates my eyes :-)
On 3/17/14 7:41 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
On Mar 15, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
Am 14.03.2014 17:10, schrieb Paul Sandoz:
I'm willing to believe for-loop over array is as efficient as fortran-style loop
+for (E e : a) {
+action.accept(e);
+}
Ye
On Mar 15, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
> Am 14.03.2014 17:10, schrieb Paul Sandoz:
>>> I'm willing to believe for-loop over array is as efficient as fortran-style
>>> loop
>>>
>>> +for (E e : a) {
>>> +action.accept(e);
>>> +}
>>>
>> Yeah, i pre
Am 14.03.2014 17:10, schrieb Paul Sandoz:
I'm willing to believe for-loop over array is as efficient as fortran-style loop
+for (E e : a) {
+action.accept(e);
+}
Yeah, i previously went through a whole bunch of code replacing such
fortran-style loops wi
Looks good to me. There are some additional optimization opportunities but they
can certainly wait.
Mike
On Mar 14 2014, at 05:04 , Paul Sandoz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch overrides some default methods with more optimal ones for the
> Arrays.asList implementation:
>
>
> http://cr.openjdk
Looks good to me. There are some additional optimization opportunities but they
can certainly wait.
Mike
On Mar 14 2014, at 05:04 , Paul Sandoz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch overrides some default methods with more optimal ones for the
> Arrays.asList implementation:
>
>
> http://cr.openjdk
On Mar 14, 2014, at 4:46 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> Looks good to me.
>
Thanks.
> I'm willing to believe for-loop over array is as efficient as fortran-style
> loop
>
> +for (E e : a) {
> +action.accept(e);
> +}
>
Yeah, i previously went through
On 14/03/2014 12:04, Paul Sandoz wrote:
Hi,
This patch overrides some default methods with more optimal ones for the
Arrays.asList implementation:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psandoz/jdk9/JDK-8037106-arrays.asList.forEach/webrev/
It required some surgical work on tests to shove in the Arr
Hi,
This patch overrides some default methods with more optimal ones for the
Arrays.asList implementation:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psandoz/jdk9/JDK-8037106-arrays.asList.forEach/webrev/
It required some surgical work on tests to shove in the Arrays.asList test
case, since it is a factor
13 matches
Mail list logo
