Hi Brain,
I believe that you can reuse "zeros" array which is declared in the class to
improve:
// Pad with internal zeros if necessary.
// Don't pad if we're at the beginning of the string.
if ((s.length() < digits) && (sb.length() > 0))
for (int i=s.length(); i<digits; i++) // May be a faster way to
sb.append('0'); // do this?
Something like:
// Pad with internal zeros if necessary.
// Don't pad if we're at the beginning of the string.
if (sb.length() > 0)
for (int i = digits - s.length(); i > 0; i -= 63)
sb.append(i > 63 ? zeros[63] : zeros[i]);
Regards,
Victor Polischuk
--- Original message ---
From: "Brian Burkhalter" <brian.burkhal...@oracle.com>
Date: 19 June 2013, 22:59:03
> Continuing on from this thread
>
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2013-June/018181.html
>
> here is a new Request for Review, this time for
>
> http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4641897
>
> The webrev is here
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/4641897/
>
> The code changes have been reviewed by me and regression tests have been run
> on my development machine including the updated test which is in the webrev.
> Performance testing has been performed only insofar as to verify improvement
> at bit lengths much larger than the algorithm crossover threshold with the
> understanding that, as for 4837946 and 4646474, the threshold is subject to
> adjustment pending performance evaluation on a mix of platforms.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brian
