I spent significant time testing this with octane and sunspider, and
didn't find any regressions.
Hannes
Am 2015-12-15 um 09:55 schrieb Marcus Lagergren:
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
