On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 10:05:24 GMT, Attila Szegedi wrote:
>> Somewhat surprisingly, `ArrayList$Sublist.sort()` is not specialized and
>> will thus fall back to slower default method of `List.sort()` instead of
>> sorting a range of the array in-place in its backi
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 23:37:03 GMT, Stuart Marks wrote:
>> Somewhat surprisingly, `ArrayList$Sublist.sort()` is not specialized and
>> will thus fall back to slower default method of `List.sort()` instead of
>> sorting a range of the array in-place in its backing root `ArrayList`.
>>
>> This
n't added tests, and `tier1`
> tests still all pass except for
> `test/jdk/java/util/Locale/LocaleProvidersFormat.java` which also currently
> fails on master too on the machine I tested on.
Attila Szegedi has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
commit since the
n't added tests, and `tier1`
> tests still all pass except for
> `test/jdk/java/util/Locale/LocaleProvidersFormat.java` which also currently
> fails on master too on the machine I tested on.
Attila Szegedi has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and previous
commits have been
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 23:37:03 GMT, Stuart Marks wrote:
>> Somewhat surprisingly, `ArrayList$Sublist.sort()` is not specialized and
>> will thus fall back to slower default method of `List.sort()` instead of
>> sorting a range of the array in-place in its backing root `ArrayList`.
>>
>> This
n't added tests, and `tier1`
> tests still all pass except for
> `test/jdk/java/util/Locale/LocaleProvidersFormat.java` which also currently
> fails on master too on the machine I tested on.
Attila Szegedi has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
commit since the last
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 03:55:37 GMT, Stuart Marks wrote:
>> Somewhat surprisingly, `ArrayList$Sublist.sort()` is not specialized and
>> will thus fall back to slower default method of `List.sort()` instead of
>> sorting a range of the array in-place in its backing root `ArrayList`.
>>
>> This
Somewhat surprisingly, `ArrayList$Sublist.sort()` is not specialized and will
thus fall back to slower default method of `List.sort()` instead of sorting a
range of the array in-place in its backing root `ArrayList`.
This doesn't change observable behavior, so haven't added tests, and `tier1`
On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 13:24:55 GMT, Athijegannathan Sundararajan
wrote:
> Adding missing "@ since 9" in javadoc comment of the public classes,
> interfaces and packages of the jdk.dynalink module.
Marked as reviewed by attila (Reviewer).
-
PR Review:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 08:33:09 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Currently Set.copyOf allocates both a HashSet and a new empty array when the
>> input collection is empty.
>>
>> This patch avoids allocating anything for the case where the parameter
>> collection's isEmpty returns true.
>
> Viktor
On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 09:28:46 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
>> `java.util.concurrent.ConcurrentHashMap` is relatively old and has not been
>> updated to reflect the current state of Java and can be modernized:
>>
>> * Add `@Serial` annotations
>> * Seal classes and restrict subclassing for internal
Hey folks,
I’ve been looking at some performance bottlenecks in a system recently, and
found that we have some that stem from synchronizing on a SimpleDateFormat
(which, as we know, isn’t thread safe.) This got me thinking about switching to
a ThreadLocal of them, but I realized that I don’t
On Wed, 20 Jul 2022 11:19:11 GMT, Andrey Turbanov wrote:
>> The comment was about WeekFields.of(), I misplaced the comment.
>>
>> @szegedi All good points about modernizing code...
>> One of the reasons to ask about specific performance data is to validate the
>> general performance impact of
On Wed, 20 Jul 2022 11:19:07 GMT, Andrey Turbanov wrote:
>> Instead of separate ConcurrentHashMap.get call, we can use result of
>> previous putIfAbsent call.
>
> Andrey Turbanov has updated the pull request incrementally with one
> additional commit since the last revision:
>
> 8288723:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2022 07:06:30 GMT, Andrey Turbanov wrote:
>> Instead of separate ConcurrentHashMap.get call, we can use result of
>> previous putIfAbsent call.
>
> Andrey Turbanov has updated the pull request incrementally with one
> additional commit since the last revision:
>
> 8288723:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2022 15:26:06 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
>> Well, if you _really_ want to noodle this for performance, you can also
>> store a `this`-bound lambda in a `private final` instance field, so then
>> it's only created once too. I wouldn't put it past `javac` to do this, but
>> I'd have
On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 20:42:53 GMT, liach wrote:
>> Andrey Turbanov has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> 8288723: Avoid redundant ConcurrentHashMap.get call in java.time
>> use computeIfAbsent where lambda could be short and
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 08:20:31 GMT, Andrey Turbanov wrote:
>> There is overload method HashMap.remove(key,value) which also checks value
>> equality.
>> It's shorter and faster than pair get+remove.
>
> Andrey Turbanov has updated the pull request incrementally with one
> additional commit since
On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 21:11:09 GMT, Andrey Turbanov wrote:
> Update code checks both non-null and instance of a class in jdk.hotspot.agent
> module classes.
> The checks and explicit casts could also be replaced with pattern matching
> for the instanceof operator.
>
> For example, the following
On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 07:27:30 GMT, Andrey Turbanov wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/time/temporal/WeekFields.java line 331:
>>
>>> 329: String key = firstDayOfWeek.toString() +
>>> minimalDaysInFirstWeek;
>>> 330: WeekFields rules = CACHE.get(key);
>>> 331: if
On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 21:29:50 GMT, Andrey Turbanov wrote:
>> Instead of separate ConcurrentHashMap.get call, we can use result of
>> previous putIfAbsent call.
>
> Andrey Turbanov has updated the pull request incrementally with one
> additional commit since the last revision:
>
> 8288723:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 15:01:55 GMT, liach wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/time/format/DateTimeTextProvider.java line
>> 319:
>>
>>> 317: store = prev;
>>> 318: }
>>> 319: }
>>
>> You could do better here and use `computeIfAbsent` with `createStore`
On Sat, 18 Jun 2022 10:43:08 GMT, Andrey Turbanov wrote:
> Instead of separate ConcurrentHashMap.get call, we can use result of previous
> putIfAbsent call.
src/java.base/share/classes/java/time/format/DateTimeTextProvider.java line 319:
> 317: store = prev;
> 318:
23 matches
Mail list logo
