[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2213?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12801368#action_12801368
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-2213:
--------------------------------------------
bq. Instead of masking with 7fff... you can mask with ffff... and let it
naturally overflow to a negative
The thing is, if we blindly add the extra allocation & return, we'll lose up to
1/8th of the usable size of the array? Ie we'll return a negative number when
in fact we could have returned MAX_INT and allowed the caller to use the full
allowed extent for arrays in java.
> Small improvements to ArrayUtil.getNextSize
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2213
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2213
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 3.1
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-2213.patch, LUCENE-2213.patch
>
>
> Spinoff from java-dev thread "Dynamic array reallocation algorithms" started
> on Jan 12, 2010.
> Here's what I did:
> * Keep the +3 for small sizes
> * Added 2nd arg = number of bytes per element.
> * Round up to 4 or 8 byte boundary (if it's 32 or 64 bit JRE respectively)
> * Still grow by 1/8th
> * If 0 is passed in, return 0 back
> I also had to remove some asserts in tests that were checking the actual
> values returned by this method -- I don't think we should test that (it's an
> impl. detail).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
