On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 14:58:22 GMT, Raffaello Giulietti
wrote:
>> This is a follow-up of the Mercurial-based workflow initiated on the
>> core-lib-devs mailing list [0]. Not sure if this one is strictly necessary
>> or if the patches sent on the list are sufficient. Anyway, I exploit this PR
>>
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 15:18:58 GMT, Raffaello Giulietti
wrote:
>> I think the change looks good.
>>
>> Before the project was on GitHub, there was a change to the test posted in
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2020-September/068504.html
>> to address the comment in
>> htt
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 00:16:57 GMT, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> a reminder that this issue has not been formally reviewed.
>> Estimated time: 10-15 min with "Hacker's delight" on the desk.
>>
>> Greetings
>> Raffaello
>
> I think the change looks good.
>
> Before the project was on G
> This is a follow-up of the Mercurial-based workflow initiated on the
> core-lib-devs mailing list [0]. Not sure if this
> one is strictly necessary or if the patches sent on the list are sufficient.
> Anyway, I exploit this PR as a test ;-)
> [0]
> https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 14:20:11 GMT, Raffaello Giulietti
wrote:
>> Hello
>>
>> this is a gentle reminder that this issue still needs a more formal review.
>>
>> Greetings
>> Raffaello
>
> Hello,
>
> a reminder that this issue has not been formally reviewed.
> Estimated time: 10-15 min with "Hack
On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 15:33:01 GMT, Raffaello Giulietti
wrote:
>> @shipilev I agree, but that's the title chosen by the reporter of the JBS
>> issue. Not sure I can edit it without
>> impacting bots and tools.
>
> Hello
>
> this is a gentle reminder that this issue still needs a more formal revi
On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 07:38:38 GMT, Raffaello Giulietti
wrote:
>> Since this patch does not involve adding the intrinsic, maybe drop "(Needs
>> to be intrinsic)" from the synopsis?
>
> @shipilev I agree, but that's the title chosen by the reporter of the JBS
> issue. Not sure I can edit it withou
On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 06:25:40 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> rgiulietti has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> 8238669: Long.divideUnsigned is extremely slow for certain values (Needs
>> to be Intrinsic)
>>
>> Added helpful
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 22:05:13 GMT, rgiulietti
wrote:
>> This is a follow-up of the Mercurial-based workflow initiated on the
>> core-lib-devs mailing list [0]. Not sure if this
>> one is strictly necessary or if the patches sent on the list are sufficient.
>> Anyway, I exploit this PR as a test
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 20:42:41 GMT, rgiulietti
wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Long.java line 1697:
>>
>>> 1695: final long q = (dividend >>> 1) / divisor << 1;
>>> 1696: final long r = dividend - q * divisor;
>>> 1697: return r - (~(r - divisor)
> This is a follow-up of the Mercurial-based workflow initiated on the
> core-lib-devs mailing list [0]. Not sure if this
> one is strictly necessary or if the patches sent on the list are sufficient.
> Anyway, I exploit this PR as a test ;-)
> [0]
> https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 20:30:36 GMT, Éamonn McManus
wrote:
>> This is a follow-up of the Mercurial-based workflow initiated on the
>> core-lib-devs mailing list [0]. Not sure if this
>> one is strictly necessary or if the patches sent on the list are sufficient.
>> Anyway, I exploit this PR as a t
On Sun, 6 Sep 2020 15:25:10 GMT, rgiulietti
wrote:
> This is a follow-up of the Mercurial-based workflow initiated on the
> core-lib-devs mailing list [0]. Not sure if this
> one is strictly necessary or if the patches sent on the list are sufficient.
> Anyway, I exploit this PR as a test ;-)
On Sun, 6 Sep 2020 15:25:10 GMT, rgiulietti
wrote:
> This is a follow-up of the Mercurial-based workflow initiated on the
> core-lib-devs mailing list [0]. Not sure if this
> one is strictly necessary or if the patches sent on the list are sufficient.
> Anyway, I exploit this PR as a test ;-)
This is a follow-up of the Mercurial-based workflow initiated on the
core-lib-devs mailing list [0]. Not sure if this
one is strictly necessary or if the patches sent on the list are sufficient.
Anyway, I exploit this PR as a test ;-)
[0]
https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/20
Hello,
FYI I just opened a PR on GitHub for this RFR.
Greetings
Raffaello
On 2020-09-03 00:44, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
Good move. ;-)
Brian
On Sep 2, 2020, at 2:26 PM, Raffaello Giulietti
mailto:raffaello.giulie...@gmail.com>>
wrote:
will do in the next days, hopefully before the trans
Hi Joe,
I modified the values in method testDivideAndRemainder(), without
touching the logic.
The values are odd and even dividends and divisors around 0, 2^31, 2^32,
2^33, 2^63 and 2^64.
Is this OK?
Greetings
Raffaello
On 2020-09-02 23:26, Raffaello Giulietti wrote:
will do in the ne
Hi Brian,
setting up µ-benchmarks to get meaningful results on code that has
execution paths with quite different shapes, like the current and the
patched one, requires some care.
I chose to exercise all paths at each iteration rather than to rely on a
high iteration count. Without real worl
Good move. ;-)
Brian
> On Sep 2, 2020, at 2:26 PM, Raffaello Giulietti
> wrote:
>
> will do in the next days, hopefully before the transition to Skara.
Hi Joe,
will do in the next days, hopefully before the transition to Skara.
I'll also add JMH results.
Greetings
Raffaello
On 2020-09-02 21:17, Joe Darcy wrote:
Hello,
I also suggest taking a look at the existing regression tests in
test/jdk/java/lang/Long/Unsigned.java
to see if mo
Hello,
I also suggest taking a look at the existing regression tests in
test/jdk/java/lang/Long/Unsigned.java
to see if more cases should be added with the new algorithm.
Potentially, the existing algorithm could retire to serve as a reference
in the regression tests.
Thanks,
-Joe
On
Hi Brian,
thanks for taking a look.
I didn't write JMH benchmarks.
Greetings
Raffaello
On 2020-09-02 16:25, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
Hi Raffaello,
I can take a look. Did you write any (JMH?) microbenchmarks?
Thanks,
Brian
On Sep 2, 2020, at 5:52 AM, Raffaello Giulietti
mailto:raffaello
Hi Raffaello,
I can take a look. Did you write any (JMH?) microbenchmarks?
Thanks,
Brian
> On Sep 2, 2020, at 5:52 AM, Raffaello Giulietti
> wrote:
>
> here's a patch for [1], which is currently unassigned. Anybody willing to
> sponsor it?
>
> The fix is based on "Hacker's Delight" (2nd ed
Hi,
here's a patch for [1], which is currently unassigned. Anybody willing
to sponsor it?
The fix is based on "Hacker's Delight" (2nd ed), section 9.3 and makes
use of longs only, no BigInteger, no garbage to collect. It is faster
and "greener" than the current code.
Contrary to the dramat
24 matches
Mail list logo
