On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 20:59:36 GMT, Artur Barashev <abaras...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Given this is a performance change, I'm fine with leaving it as is. Jumping >> to a helper method with an encrypt/decrypt conditional check for every >> crypto op will costs performance. This is a case where more efficient code >> is more verbose syntax. > > @ascarpino But a method call should be very cheap, we are adding a bunch of > extra implEncrypt/implDecrypt calls here already. Besides, compiler/hotspot > will optimize that call if needed. It will be just a method wrapping the > `for` loop. I don't think it matters either way performance-wise, or from any other point of view in this case, but as a rule of thumb, I think for readability/maintainability it is worth to give up a bit of code size (especially if that is only source code size, since the compiler would duplicate the runtime code anyways) and/or performance. Of course, it is hard to decide which version is more readable/maintainable. For me, in this case, the source code duplication seems to be the better solution, I would not write a helper function for a 3-line for loop. I have spent many hours of my life trying to figure out whether I brake something if I make a little change in a function that appears on multiple code paths... ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22086#discussion_r1843378422
