On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 19:30:41 GMT, Paul Sandoz <psan...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> Unfortunately it is still problematic because you have replaced the intrinsic > check (that performed by `Object.checksIndex`, or more specifically > [here](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/util/Preconditions.java#L261)). > > Further, you have replaced the bounds check options, in place for > experimentation. We are not ready yet to collapse our options, further > analysis is required as bounds checks can be very sensitive in C2. > > I would be open to you adding a third case, so that you can analyze the > performance without perturbing the default behavior. I suspect the correct > fix is to make intrinsic `Objects.checkFromIndexSize` in a similar manner to > `Object.checksIndex`. Hi @PaulSandoz , Thanks for your kind review and comments. To be honest, I didn't get your first point. As for the example above, the intrinsified Objects.checkIndex seems to generate more code than inlined if-statements. So I'm confused why it's a problem to replace the intrinsic check. Did you mean an intrinsic is always (or for most cases) better than non-intrinc or inlined if-statements? And why? Could you please make it more clearer to us? Thanks. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/2127
