On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 10:05:01 GMT, Claes Redestad <redes...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> I think we could consider dropping `vectorized` from `vectorizedHashCode`: > there's nothing in the library-side implementation for this that is > explicitly setting up for vectorization of each case (unlike the > `mismatch/vectorizedMismatch` pair). Sounds good; I specifically dislike "vectorized" being in the name of the method that is called by clients who don't seem to require that behaviour. It's misleading. Method naming aside, `ArraysSupport.vectorizedHashCode` has one additional wrinkle. One of its arguments, `int basicType`, accepts untyped constants whose names might be so counterintuitive that a reviewer might insist on adding an inline comment to indicate that a particular combination of arguments is not a typo, but an intended case of _unsigned bytes_, for example: https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/2bdfa836adbeba3319bee4ee61017907d6d84d58/src/java.base/unix/classes/sun/nio/fs/UnixPath.java#L801-L811 Could we hide that `int basicType` behind overloads that have static safety better than `Object array` and are appropriately named? For example: public static int hashCode(byte[] array, int fromIndex, int length, int initialValue); public static int unsignedHashCode(byte[] array, int fromIndex, int length, int initialValue); Related, I assume this is a typo jdk.internal.util.ArraysSupport#signedHashCode and it should've been jdk.internal.util.ArraysSupport#unsignedHashCode ^^^ ? ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14831#issuecomment-1655477396
