(friendly reminder) Guys, can someone review HARMONY-5771? This is IdentityHashMap migration to optimized HashMap code, giving +20% to SPECjvm2008:serial.
Thanks, Aleksey. On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Aleksey Shipilev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks to Mark, HARMONY-5791 (HashMap cleanup) was committed. > > Now I had moved IdentityHashMap implementation to be like cleaned > HashMap and filed HARMONY-5771 with the patches. Could someone please > review it? > > Thanks, > Aleksey. > > On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Aleksey Shipilev > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm back from my long vacation and see that milestone is almost ready, >> so we could proceed with Collections works. >> Can someone review HARMONY-5791? >> >> Thanks, >> Aleksey. >> >> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Aleksey Shipilev >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Nathan, >>> >>> Is there an option to commit this patch before code freeze starts (if >>> not already)? >>> The changes there are pretty trivial and I could proceed with >>> IdentityHashMap works while M6 is under testing. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Aleksey. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 4:21 AM, Nathan Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> > Bring this back up after the milestone is complete. >>> > >>> > -Nathan >>> > >>> > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:49 AM, Aleksey Shipilev < >>> > >>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > > 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]<https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cm&tf=0&[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]<https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cm&tf=0&[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. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> >> >
