Hi, > I see the plan is following: > 1. Sweep the HashMap implementation and make the source beatuful: add > necessary comments, re-layout class members. > 2. Test-commit-test sweeped HashMap implementation and see there are > no breakages. > 3. Remove legacy IdentityHashMap and copy HashMap over it (using svn > capabilities) > 4. Transform new IdentityHashMap to real IdentityHashMap (hashCode -> > identityHashCode, equals -> == and stuff) > 5. Test-commit-test new IdentityHashMap.
It seems like we had stuck on (1) point on our plan, there is a patch already in HARMONY-5791, and we need to review it before moving towards actual performance works. LUNI/Collections gurus (Jimmy, Mark, Nathan, Tim?), please review it so I can proceed in my efforts. :) Thanks, Aleksey. On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Aleksey Shipilev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi again, > > Can some classlib guru review HARMONY-5791? > > Thanks, > Aleksey. > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 1:31 AM, Aleksey Shipilev > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Mark, > > > > That's great there are no regressions on Commons-collections tests! > > BTW, can we adopt them as the part of BTI or luni tests? > > > > I had created HARMONY-5791 for HashMap cleanup, and there's a first > > patch already, can you please take a look? I had extracted the > > contract-related methods there, so the change to IdentityHashMap > > should be pretty straightforward. After we finish with this issue, I > > could provide the clean script/patch for IdentityHashMap changes. > > > > Thanks, > > Aleksey. > > > > > >
