On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Simon Willnauer <simon.willna...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Dawid Weiss > <dawid.we...@cs.put.poznan.pl> wrote: >>> I don't seen any evidence that this is any slower though. >> >> You need to run with -client (if the machine is a beast this is tricky >> because x64 will pick -server regardless of the command-line setting) >> and you need to be copying generic arrays. I think this can be shown >> -- a caliper benchmark would be perfect to demonstrate this in >> isolation; I may write one if I find a spare moment. > > this is what I want to see. I don't want to discuss based on some bug > reported for a non-primitive version of copyOf thats all. > its pointless to discuss if there is no evidence which I don't see. I > am happy with arraycopy I would just have appreciated a discussion > before backing the change out.
I think the burden of proof here is on Arrays.copyOf. Ie, until we can prove (through benchmarking in different envs) that it can be trusted, we should just stick with System.arraycopy to reduce the risk. Mike --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
