On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 13:24:33 GMT, Shaojin Wen <s...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/invoke/StringConcatFactory.java line >> 529: >> >>> 527: mh = simpleConcat3(paramType0); >>> 528: mh = MethodHandles.insertArguments(mh, 0, prefix); >>> 529: return MethodHandles.filterArguments(mh, 1, >>> objectStringifier()); >> >> While this is a fun trick it seems like there's a non-trivial cost here? >> We'd go down different paths and generate different classes for `"foo" + bar >> + baz` and `"foo" + bar + " .. " + baz` with this. Special casing when we >> get the added shapes for more or less free (plain `simpleConcat()`) is a >> different matter but here you need to construct a new couple of shapes with >> `insert-` and `filterArguments`. >> >> (Check on paramType1 could be `!paramType1.isPrimitive()`) > > I'm also not sure how much cost the simpleConcat handling of the 2 parameters > would bring, I've removed that, and this is more appropriately implemented by > the InlineHiddenClassStrategy. If we handle the null values of prefix and suffix, the cost of supporting the 2-parameter scenario will be much lower. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20726#discussion_r1763226369
