On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 15:05:47 GMT, Vicente Romero wrote:
>> Please review this PR which aims to optimize the implementation of the
>> `toString` method we provide for records. A benchmark comparing the
>> implementation we are providing for records with lombok found out that
>> lombok is much f
On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 15:05:47 GMT, Vicente Romero wrote:
>> Please review this PR which aims to optimize the implementation of the
>> `toString` method we provide for records. A benchmark comparing the
>> implementation we are providing for records with lombok found out that
>> lombok is much f
> Please review this PR which aims to optimize the implementation of the
> `toString` method we provide for records. A benchmark comparing the
> implementation we are providing for records with lombok found out that lombok
> is much faster mainly because our implementation uses `String::format`.
> Please review this PR which aims to optimize the implementation of the
> `toString` method we provide for records. A benchmark comparing the
> implementation we are providing for records with lombok found out that lombok
> is much faster mainly because our implementation uses `String::format`.
On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 15:53:53 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
> FWIW I did a few experiments trying to move the chunking to `SCF`. Most made
> things worse, but this is getting close:
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/compare/master...cl4es:scf_split?expand=1
>
> The threshold for when the JIT fails
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 12:10:40 GMT, Jim Laskey wrote:
>> @stuart-marks yes, a general purpose splitting logic moved into the
>> `StringConcatFactory` would be able to get rid of the arbitrary 200 slot
>> limit (we would hit a harder but less arbitrary limit at around 253 instead).
>>
>> @JimLask
On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 16:03:16 GMT, Jim Laskey wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/runtime/ObjectMethods.java line 314:
>>
>>> 312: ).getTarget();
>>> 313: mhs[splitIndex] =
>>> MethodHandles.filterArguments(mhs[splitIndex], 0, currentSplitGette
On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 00:29:46 GMT, Vicente Romero wrote:
>> Please review this PR which aims to optimize the implementation of the
>> `toString` method we provide for records. A benchmark comparing the
>> implementation we are providing for records with lombok found out that
>> lombok is much f
On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 15:56:46 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
>> Vicente Romero has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> setting max split size to 20
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/runtime/ObjectMethods.java line 314:
>
>> 3
On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 00:29:46 GMT, Vicente Romero wrote:
>> Please review this PR which aims to optimize the implementation of the
>> `toString` method we provide for records. A benchmark comparing the
>> implementation we are providing for records with lombok found out that
>> lombok is much f
On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 00:29:46 GMT, Vicente Romero wrote:
>> Please review this PR which aims to optimize the implementation of the
>> `toString` method we provide for records. A benchmark comparing the
>> implementation we are providing for records with lombok found out that
>> lombok is much f
On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 00:29:46 GMT, Vicente Romero wrote:
>> Please review this PR which aims to optimize the implementation of the
>> `toString` method we provide for records. A benchmark comparing the
>> implementation we are providing for records with lombok found out that
>> lombok is much f
> Please review this PR which aims to optimize the implementation of the
> `toString` method we provide for records. A benchmark comparing the
> implementation we are providing for records with lombok found out that lombok
> is much faster mainly because our implementation uses `String::format`.
On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 05:07:23 GMT, Vicente Romero wrote:
>> Please review this PR which aims to optimize the implementation of the
>> `toString` method we provide for records. A benchmark comparing the
>> implementation we are providing for records with lombok found out that
>> lombok is much f
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 11:31:41 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
>> Regarding the slot limit in `StringConcatFactory`, it's not clear to me the
>> limit of 200 is normative or is merely an implementation note. The limit of
>> 200 slots seems to be arbitrary and shouldn't be baked into the spec.
>> Perh
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 04:40:22 GMT, Stuart Marks wrote:
> Regarding the slot limit in `StringConcatFactory`, it's not clear to me the
> limit of 200 is normative or is merely an implementation note. The limit of
> 200 slots seems to be arbitrary and shouldn't be baked into the spec. Perhaps
> th
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 04:40:22 GMT, Stuart Marks wrote:
>> Vicente Romero has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> adding the benchmark
>
> Regarding the slot limit in `StringConcatFactory`, it's not clear to me the
> limit of 200
On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 05:07:23 GMT, Vicente Romero wrote:
>> Please review this PR which aims to optimize the implementation of the
>> `toString` method we provide for records. A benchmark comparing the
>> implementation we are providing for records with lombok found out that
>> lombok is much f
On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 05:07:23 GMT, Vicente Romero wrote:
>> Please review this PR which aims to optimize the implementation of the
>> `toString` method we provide for records. A benchmark comparing the
>> implementation we are providing for records with lombok found out that
>> lombok is much f
On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 05:12:25 GMT, Vicente Romero wrote:
> It seems like the execution is way faster for these number of slots.
I suggested this experiment to split up the concatenations more aggressively to
diagnose if we're having an issue here where the performance of the method
handle produ
On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 05:28:10 GMT, Guoxiong Li wrote:
> FYI: this patch also seems to solve
> [JDK-8265747](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8265747).
yep, although I prefer to keep
[JDK-8265747](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8265747) because it is
also referring to the hash
On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 05:07:23 GMT, Vicente Romero wrote:
>> Please review this PR which aims to optimize the implementation of the
>> `toString` method we provide for records. A benchmark comparing the
>> implementation we are providing for records with lombok found out that
>> lombok is much f
On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 05:07:23 GMT, Vicente Romero wrote:
>> Please review this PR which aims to optimize the implementation of the
>> `toString` method we provide for records. A benchmark comparing the
>> implementation we are providing for records with lombok found out that
>> lombok is much f
> Please review this PR which aims to optimize the implementation of the
> `toString` method we provide for records. A benchmark comparing the
> implementation we are providing for records with lombok found out that lombok
> is much faster mainly because our implementation uses `String::format`.
On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 22:00:30 GMT, Vicente Romero wrote:
>> Please review this PR which aims to optimize the implementation of the
>> `toString` method we provide for records. A benchmark comparing the
>> implementation we are providing for records with lombok found out that
>> lombok is much f
On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 22:00:30 GMT, Vicente Romero wrote:
>> Please review this PR which aims to optimize the implementation of the
>> `toString` method we provide for records. A benchmark comparing the
>> implementation we are providing for records with lombok found out that
>> lombok is much f
> Please review this PR which aims to optimize the implementation of the
> `toString` method we provide for records. A benchmark comparing the
> implementation we are providing for records with lombok found out that lombok
> is much faster mainly because our implementation uses `String::format`.
On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 05:24:38 GMT, Vicente Romero wrote:
> Please review this PR which aims to optimize the implementation of the
> `toString` method we provide for records. A benchmark comparing the
> implementation we are providing for records with lombok found out that lombok
> is much faste
On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 05:24:38 GMT, Vicente Romero wrote:
> Please review this PR which aims to optimize the implementation of the
> `toString` method we provide for records. A benchmark comparing the
> implementation we are providing for records with lombok found out that lombok
> is much faste
On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 05:24:38 GMT, Vicente Romero wrote:
> Please review this PR which aims to optimize the implementation of the
> `toString` method we provide for records. A benchmark comparing the
> implementation we are providing for records with lombok found out that lombok
> is much faste
On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 05:24:38 GMT, Vicente Romero wrote:
> Please review this PR which aims to optimize the implementation of the
> `toString` method we provide for records. A benchmark comparing the
> implementation we are providing for records with lombok found out that lombok
> is much faste
On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 05:24:38 GMT, Vicente Romero wrote:
> Please review this PR which aims to optimize the implementation of the
> `toString` method we provide for records. A benchmark comparing the
> implementation we are providing for records with lombok found out that lombok
> is much faste
On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 13:03:35 GMT, Jim Laskey wrote:
>> (I'm not reviewer.)
>>
>> I think `.toArray(Class[]::new)` should be better here. `.toList` seems
>> unnecessary.
>
> Class[] types = Stream.of(getters)
> .map(g -> g.type().returnType())
> .toArray(Class[]::
On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 10:36:46 GMT, Glavo wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/runtime/ObjectMethods.java line 264:
>>
>>> 262: .map(g -> g.type().returnType())
>>> 263: .toList()
>>> 264: .toArray(new Class[getters.length]);
>>
>> Why no
On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 09:45:56 GMT, Сергей Цыпанов wrote:
>> Please review this PR which aims to optimize the implementation of the
>> `toString` method we provide for records. A benchmark comparing the
>> implementation we are providing for records with lombok found out that
>> lombok is much f
On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 05:24:38 GMT, Vicente Romero wrote:
> Please review this PR which aims to optimize the implementation of the
> `toString` method we provide for records. A benchmark comparing the
> implementation we are providing for records with lombok found out that lombok
> is much faste
On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 05:24:38 GMT, Vicente Romero wrote:
> Please review this PR which aims to optimize the implementation of the
> `toString` method we provide for records. A benchmark comparing the
> implementation we are providing for records with lombok found out that lombok
> is much faste
37 matches
Mail list logo