On 30 November 2010 16:02, Jochen Theodorou <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote: > [...] > > Is it, what you propose that the JVM replaces iadd instructions (et >> al) with the resp. bytecodes to extract the primitive integer value >> and apply the operation on that value? How would that improve >> performance? I can think of two possible explanations for bad >> performance with boxed primitives: 1. added redirection. 2. allocation >> costs. How would you make that go away? >> > > Does the JVM even has to realize an int object before something specific to > the object is done? I think not. I think that in many cases the JVM does not > have to create an actual Integer and thus does not have to pay the cost of > creating the actual object. About bad performance... > The problem is that either I handle Integer, then for a Integer+Integer I > have to unbox both and most probably also box again. Or I handle int, and > then I have to live with the problems regarding for example assigning null. > > But what of a collection of integers, or any other generic type for that matter? Places where you simply can't use a primitive. This is where the most pain is felt. Micro-optimising a single integer addition is silly, but when you have 10,000 of them... and no, arrays are NOT the answer. -- Kevin Wright mail / gtalk / msn : [email protected] pulse / skype: kev.lee.wright twitter: @thecoda -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM Languages" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages?hl=en.
