Looks good to me too.
best regards,
-- daniel
On 14/02/2020 11:57, Patrick Concannon wrote:
Hi,
With further discussion on this benchmark test with Claes off-list, I've
updated the code to use more descriptive names. The updated webrev can
be found below.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pconc
On 2020-02-14 13:01, Chris Hegarty wrote:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pconcannon/8237480/webrevs/webrev.03/
LGTM.
+1
/Claes
> On 14 Feb 2020, at 11:57, Patrick Concannon
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> With further discussion on this benchmark test with Claes off-list, I've
> updated the code to use more descriptive names. The updated webrev can be
> found below.
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pconcannon/8237480/webrevs/
Hi,
With further discussion on this benchmark test with Claes off-list, I've
updated the code to use more descriptive names. The updated webrev can
be found below.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pconcannon/8237480/webrevs/webrev.03/
Kind regards,
Patrick
On 13/02/2020 12:54, Patrick Concann
Hi Claes,
Thanks for the feedback.
I've reduced the parameters to 5 i.e. "128", "512", "2048", "8192", "32768"
I've also removed the main method to conform with the layout of the other
benchmark tests.
You can find the changes in the updated webrev below:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pconcann
Hi,
looks reasonable to me.
To keep default execution times at a manageable level, I'd recommend
excluding some of the 9 values for the size parameter (3-5 values seem
reasonable).
/Claes
On 2020-02-12 16:04, Patrick Concannon wrote:
Hi,
Could someone please review my webrev for JDK-8237480
