On 02/13/2015 02:58 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>
> On Feb 13, 2015, at 3:31 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>> On 02/13/2015 01:56 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>>> John suggested that a general array mis-match method could be achieved with
>>> carefully written Java code [1], and slightly hidden within that is
On Feb 13, 2015, at 3:31 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 02/13/2015 01:56 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>> John suggested that a general array mis-match method could be achieved with
>> carefully written Java code [1], and slightly hidden within that is the
>> comment "FIXME: Add Unsafe.getLongMisaligne
On 02/13/2015 01:56 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
> John suggested that a general array mis-match method could be achieved with
> carefully written Java code [1], and slightly hidden within that is the
> comment "FIXME: Add Unsafe.getLongMisaligned to avoid this cutout".
Right, so we're definitely thin
On Feb 13, 2015, at 2:16 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 02/10/2015 07:48 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>
>> People will continue to want to access byte arrays (and direct byte
>> buffers) with C-like performance, and are currently using Unsafe to
>> do so. Hard to fix for real. Endianness and unal
On 02/10/2015 07:48 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> People will continue to want to access byte arrays (and direct byte
> buffers) with C-like performance, and are currently using Unsafe to
> do so. Hard to fix for real. Endianness and unaligned access are
> both non-portable aspects. People don't
On Feb 11, 2015, at 12:15 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> The addition of array comparison intrinsics makes sense - I've missed them
> myself on occasion.
>
Thanks.
> I was surprised that System.arraycopy hasn't been specialized for every array
> type.
> I guess the JIT is good at specializing
On Feb 11, 2015, at 12:26 AM, John Rose wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2015, at 3:15 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>>
>> I was surprised that System.arraycopy hasn't been specialized for every
>> array type.
>> I guess the JIT is good at specializing all callers.
>
> Yes. Usually the arguments have specific
On Feb 10, 2015, at 3:15 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>
> I was surprised that System.arraycopy hasn't been specialized for every
> array type.
> I guess the JIT is good at specializing all callers.
Yes. Usually the arguments have specific static types the JIT can see.
The Object formal type does
The addition of array comparison intrinsics makes sense - I've missed them
myself on occasion.
I was surprised that System.arraycopy hasn't been specialized for every
array type.
I guess the JIT is good at specializing all callers.
I don't know whether we will someday regret the explosion of arra
Hi Martin,
In this case i am trying to pick off one particularly common case, within the 9
time-frame, used in a number of popular libraries. In that context (including
that of the intrinsic referenced in the related issue) do you think this is
reasonable?
On Feb 10, 2015, at 8:48 PM, Martin
People will continue to want to access byte arrays (and direct byte
buffers) with C-like performance, and are currently using Unsafe to do so.
Hard to fix for real. Endianness and unaligned access are both
non-portable aspects. People don't want to pay for bounds checking and
especially not for a
11 matches
Mail list logo
