I really hope this doesn't require intrinsifying requireNonNull since, as mentioned before, this is a general issue. I'm almost tempted to say that JIT should always treat a null check followed by an explicit NPE as being an uncommon path, despite what profile may say.
sent from my phone On Feb 20, 2015 8:18 AM, "Aleksey Shipilev" <aleksey.shipi...@oracle.com> wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Thanks for additional testing! > > On 02/20/2015 03:48 PM, Peter Levart wrote: > > So we hope for Objects.requireNonNull to be inlined most of the times. > > Yes, I think so, otherwise it is a platform bug :) And, as I said in > reply to Vitaly, the ultimate answer would be to intrinsify > Objects.requireNonNull to unconditionally bias it towards the non-null > case and implicit NP checks. > > The test is actually specifically crafted to amplify the costs of the > pollution. The side effect of that method is excessive method calls. > It's not a surprise CPUs can execute the dense code oblivious of minor > code differences. (Speculation: CPUs need to re-adjust their pipelines > after the real call, so non-inlined version would pay some extra) > > Thanks, > -Aleksey > > >
