On 06/01/16 23:21, Martin Buchholz wrote: > That is, the Unsafe code is 3x faster than the simple code. The > ByteBuffer code used to be 2x slower and is now 2x faster - well > done - crowd goes wild!
Why, thank you. > I see it uses new and well-hidden Unsafe.getLongUnaligned ... all > the performance fanatics want to use that, but y'all don't want to > give it to us. And we don't want to allocate a temp ByteBuffer > object. What to do? If you allocate a temp ByteBuffer object carefully so that it does not escape, it will be removed and you should get the same code as directly using Unsafe. I certainly tested it during the work on Unsafe.getXXUnaligned and it was the same. I'll have a look at your example. Andrew.
