All octane benchmarks and stuff like that run with no serious regressions, I hope?
> On 14 Dec 2015, at 17:30, Hannes Wallnoefer <hannes.wallnoe...@oracle.com> > wrote: > > For the record, I tried the integer index optimization for array iterators, > but didn't really see a difference running a microbenchmark using > Array.prototype.forEach, so I left it out after all. > > Hannes > > Am 2015-12-11 um 16:30 schrieb Hannes Wallnoefer: >> Am 2015-12-11 um 16:21 schrieb Attila Szegedi: >>> On Dec 11, 2015, at 4:08 PM, Hannes Wallnoefer >>> <hannes.wallnoe...@oracle.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I didn't implement the int/double overloading of array iterator actions. >>>> Unless I missed something, I would have to implement two forEach methods >>>> in each subclass, which seem ugly and error prone. >>> You haven’t missed anything; that’s exactly how that would work. >>> Ultimately, if we had macros in Java, this wouldn’t need to look ugly, but >>> we don’t have them, so… Performance optimizations are sometimes ugly :-) >>> Anyway, this needn’t happen now, although ultimately I don’t think it’d be >>> much of a big deal to implement, even with the unfortunate code >>> duplication, and we still wouldn’t always force-promote the parameter type >>> for the callback functions to double. >>> >> >> Ok, you convinced me. I'll add that optimization an upcoming webrev. Still >> waiting for other reviews though. >> >> Hannes >
