On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 07:44:33 GMT, Emanuel Peter <epe...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> [8318446](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/16245) brings MergeStore. We >> need a JMH Benchmark to evaluate the performance of various batch operations >> and the effect of MergeStore. > > test/micro/org/openjdk/bench/java/lang/MergeStoreBench.java line 656: > >> 654: array[offset + 2] = (byte) (value >> 8); >> 655: array[offset + 3] = (byte) (value ); >> 656: } > > You say that here `MergeStore` does not work. That is because the indices are > increasing, but the shifts decreasing. So that does not work on little-endian > machines (most architectures), but I would expect it to work on big-endian > machines with https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/19218. Big endian is often used in network data transmission scenarios, and it is common to process big endian data on a little endian machine. In this case, can it be optimized to Integer.reverseBytes & putInt on a LittleEndian machine? `setIntB -> setIntRL` ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19734#discussion_r1642373495
