[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-230?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12777602#action_12777602
]
Nicholas Paldino commented on LUCENENET-230:
--------------------------------------------
I believe I commented on this elsewhere, but this is a horrible idea. You are
trying to second guess the JIT which in general is a very bad idea.
Also, there have been no mentions that this actually impacts performance. You
say "I believe" that it will cause performance issue.
Because you have no substantial evidence that removing the method call will
impact performance in a noticeable way, it shouldn't be done, as you are
increasing the complexity of the code and reducing maintainability for a
benefit that you don't know is there.
In other words, this is premature optimization. It's an anti-best-practice and
shouldn't be applied here.
That being said, the patch for the fix for URShift should be applied, but it
should not be replaced in OpenBitSetIterator or OpenBitSet. Also, an attempt
to replace calls to URShift in other areas of the code bring up the same issues
and should NOT be made.
> TestOpenBitSet
> --------------
>
> Key: LUCENENET-230
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-230
> Project: Lucene.Net
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Michael Garski
> Attachments: LUCENENET-230.patch
>
>
> I'm working through the tests in TestOpenBitSet. I'll be merging in Doug's
> code from 2.4 to handle growing the BitArrays.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
