On 15/11/17 18:38, Vitaly Davidovich wrote: > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 15/11/17 15:38, Alan Bateman wrote: >>> Moving the nativeOrder out of the loop make sense but I'm curious about >>> the context for improving this implementation. >> >> I wonder about lifting ByteOrder.nativeOrder(). Maybe it fails to >> inline because the method is too large: if that happens, we really >> lose. I'm not seeing that, though: it seems to be inlined just fine, >> and has no effect. >> >> In any case, this patch doesn't help anything on my test hardware. > Is this with -Xcomp though? That can generate crap code because > there's no profiling information. Not that -Xcomp should be the way > to test peak performance IMO, but that is the setting that was used I > believe.
Shrug; maybe. We shouldn't mess the code up for -Xcomp. -- Andrew Haley Java Platform Lead Engineer Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com> EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671
