On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 12:46:22 GMT, Raffaello Giulietti <rgiulie...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> String uses `<< coder` in many places. I think the following way of writing >> is also good: >> >> Unsafe.getUnsafe().copyMemory( >> ca, >> Unsafe.ARRAY_CHAR_BASE_OFFSET + (long) off << String.UTF16, >> val, >> Unsafe.ARRAY_CHAR_BASE_OFFSET + (long) index << String.UTF16, >> (long) (end - off) << String.UTF16); > > I agree that we can expect arrays to be laid out as a contiguous chunk of > memory with the intuitively expected element size. > _But..._ AFAIK this is not specified anywhere in the JVMS, although it is > true that it is tacitly assumed in many low-level parts of the codebase. So, > in this sense, I'm fine with your code. There are many places in the String class that use `<< 1` and `>> 1` to handle the length of UTF16 byte[], so is it okay to use `<< 1` directly in the current version of the code? ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24773#discussion_r2236631515
