On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 19:33:02 GMT, Naoto Sato <na...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> > So, considering all the information given, is it enough to start our new > > review process? @naotoj @liach @justin-curtis-lu > > Well, I was suggesting the same buffer proxying for other Format classes than > NumberFormat subclasses, such as DateFormat so that they would have the same > performance benefit. Would you be willing to do that too? Sure. All `Format`'s subclasses has been replaced with buffer proxying. After that I run the benchmark test with averageTime mode. The result show the StringBuilder has take effect. Please review again. @naotoj @liach @justin-curtis-lu | Testcase | JDK 11 | JDK 22 | Current JDK | | ------------- | ------------- |------------- | ------------- | | java.text.NumberFormat#format(double)| 362.221 | 636.049 | 351.913| | java.text.DateFormat#format(java.util.Date)| 362.273|944.733|317.436| |java.text.MessageFormat#format| 599.146| 937.717|499.584| |java.text.ListFormat#format| N/A | 464.123|318.978| ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19513#issuecomment-2191307113
