On Wed, 16 Nov 2022 18:18:55 GMT, Claes Redestad <redes...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Claes Redestad has updated the pull request incrementally with one >> additional commit since the last revision: >> >> Missing & 0xff in StringLatin1::hashCode > > I'm getting pulled into other tasks and would request for this to be either > accepted as-is, rejected or picked up by someone else to rewrite it to > something that can be accepted. > > Obviously I'm biased towards acceptance: While imperfect, it provides > improved testing - both functional and performance-wise - and establishes a > significantly improved benchmark for more future-proof solutions to beat. > There are many ways to iteratively improve upon this solution, some of which > would even simplify the implementation. But in the face of upcoming changes > that might allow C2 to optimize these kinds of loops without intrinsic > support I am not sure spending more time on perfecting the current patch is > worth our while. > > Rejecting it might be the reasonable thing to do, too, especially if the C2 > loop optimizations @iwanowww points out might be coming around sooner rather > than later. Even if that's not coming soon, the PR at hand adds a chunk of > complexity for the compiler team to maintain. @cl4es @iwanowww is that change still good to go forward? What else would you like to see for it to be merged? Thanks! ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/10847
