On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 01:12:25 GMT, 温绍锦 wrote:
>> Some codes in core libs are duplicated, including:
>> java.util.DecimalDigits::DIGITS -> java.lang.StringLatin1.PACKED_DIGITS
>> java.util.DecimalDigits::size -> java.lang.Long.stringSize
>>
>> We can reduce duplication through JavaLangAccess,
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 18:45:44 GMT, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>>> Testing results seem good. Except one strange failure I put in
>>> [JDK-8143900](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8143900) comment. You
>>> need second review.
>>
>> This seems related to
On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 02:29:44 GMT, Yi Yang wrote:
> Hi, can I have a review for this patch? I noticed a strange field
> Integer.sizeTable which is used by PhaseStringOpts, after digging into the
> history, I think it could be replaced by an in-place array allocation and
> in
er.sizeTable and get num
> of digit in integer by iterating size table, now we fetch from in-place
> sizeTable and get size from that. The changed IR looks like this:
>
> 
>
>
On Sat, 25 Feb 2023 01:34:40 GMT, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> Testing results seem good. Except one strange failure I put in
> [JDK-8143900](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8143900) comment. You need
> second review.
This seems related to https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8296914
On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 02:29:44 GMT, Yi Yang wrote:
> Hi, can I have a review for this patch? I noticed a strange field
> Integer.sizeTable which is used by PhaseStringOpts, after digging into the
> history, I think it could be replaced by an in-place array allocation and
> in
er.sizeTable and get num
> of digit in integer by iterating size table, now we fetch from in-place
> sizeTable and get size from that. The changed IR looks like this:
>
> 
>
>
Hi, can I have a review for this patch? I noticed a strange field
Integer.sizeTable, after digging into its history, I think it could be replaced
by an in-place array allocation and initialization.
Thanks.
-
Commit messages:
- 8143900 OptimizeStringConcat has an opaque dependency
On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 06:45:26 GMT, Dongxu Wang wrote:
>> 8297385: Remove duplicated null typos in javadoc
>
> Dongxu Wang has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
> brought in by the merge/rebase. The
On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 15:05:45 GMT, Dongxu Wang wrote:
> 8297385: Remove duplicated null typos in javadoc
good catch, do you need a JBS issue for this?
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/11169
On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 02:22:20 GMT, Dongxu Wang wrote:
> > good catch, do you need a JBS issue for this?
>
> Thank you if you can help with that.
I filed https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8297385 for this, you can change
your PR title and commit message to [8297385: Remove duplicated null
11 matches
Mail list logo
