You's right. The native implementation in vm is only for those
"constants", and that's not "intrinsic".
On 9/17/14 9:20 AM, Vitaly Davidovich wrote:
There's no such intrinsic; there's intrinsic support for calling
native object hashcode, but string isn't special cased.
Sent from my phone
On Sep 17, 2014 12:14 PM, "Xueming Shen" <xueming.s...@oracle.com
<mailto:xueming.s...@oracle.com>> wrote:
It definitely helps the "readability". String.hashCode() has
intrinsics, so I don't think
we are seeing the real performance "difference" of the
implementations. My guess
is the original one probably is faster.
On 9/17/14 8:25 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
Thanks Martin!
It used to be "Clean-up String.hashCode()", and Alan had
improved it
since then. :) To Alan's defense, the bug report was shallow
at that
point to understand what is being proposed. I changed the title to
"Improve...".
Cheers,
-Aleksey.
On 09/17/2014 07:19 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
Looks good, but I would use this title:
(str) Improve String.hashCode implementation
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Aleksey Shipilev
<aleksey.shipi...@oracle.com
<mailto:aleksey.shipi...@oracle.com>
<mailto:aleksey.shipi...@oracle.com
<mailto:aleksey.shipi...@oracle.com>>> wrote:
Hi,
Can I have a review and a sponsorship for this tiny
readability cleanup
in String.hashCode()?
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shade/8058643/webrev.01/
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eshade/8058643/webrev.01/>
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eshade/8058643/webrev.01/>
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8058643
Thanks,
-Aleksey.
