On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:41:00 GMT, Kevin Rushforth <k...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> I have found that fixing this rudimentary problematic code alleviates your >> problem. >> >> **This fix will reduce CPU usage by about 1/3 without your changes.** >> **This fix improves performance in many widespread use cases.** >> >> However, I'm wondering how to report the problem. Should it be handled in >> this issue? Should I deal with a new issue >> for a rudimentary issue? >> @kevinrushforth What should i do? >> >> https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/blob/22d4343fe8563c2931910b98e8f18c6fd4a48f05/modules/javafx.base/src/main/java/com/sun/javafx/collections/ObservableListWrapper.java#L170-L206 >> >> Rewritten so that BitSet is not used. >> Java >> @Override >> public boolean removeAll(Collection<?> c) { >> if(this.isEmpty() || c.isEmpty()){ >> return false; >> } >> beginChange(); >> boolean removed = false; >> for (int i = size()-1; i>=0; i--) { >> if (c.contains(get(i))) { >> remove(i); >> removed = true; >> } >> } >> endChange(); >> return removed; >> } >> >> @Override >> public boolean retainAll(Collection<?> c) { >> if(this.isEmpty() || c.isEmpty()){ >> return false; >> } >> beginChange(); >> boolean retained = false; >> for (int i = size()-1; i>=0; i--) { >> if (!c.contains(get(i))) { >> remove(i); >> retained = true; >> } >> } >> endChange(); >> return retained; >> } > > @yososs Please file a new JBS issue for this. You will need to prove that > your proposed change is functionally > equivalent (or that any perceived changes are incidental and still conform to > the spec). You should also think about > whether your proposed change needs additional tests. Because it is such a small correction Problem from me I feel that it is not easy to register, but I will try to register. It has passed two existing tests for compatibility: * gradle base:test * gradle controls:test ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/108
