On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 12:51:31 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
> I'm requesting comments and, hopefully, some help with this patch to replace
> `StringCoding.hasNegatives` with `countPositives`. The new method does a very
> similar pass, but alters the intrinsic to return the number of
> I'm requesting comments and, hopefully, some help with this patch to replace
> `StringCoding.hasNegatives` with `countPositives`. The new method does a very
> similar pass, but alters the intrinsic to return the number of leading bytes
> in the `byte[]` range which only h
On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 20:30:51 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
>> Claes Redestad has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Fix copyright year in new test
>
> core libs String.java changes look fine.
Thanks @RogerRiggs
I intend to push thi
On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 23:59:32 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
>> I'm requesting comments and, hopefully, some help with this patch to replace
>> `StringCoding.hasNegatives` with `countPositives`. The new method does a
>> very similar pass, but alters the intrinsic to retur
On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 23:59:32 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
>> I'm requesting comments and, hopefully, some help with this patch to replace
>> `StringCoding.hasNegatives` with `countPositives`. The new method does a
>> very similar pass, but alters the intrinsic to retur
> I'm requesting comments and, hopefully, some help with this patch to replace
> `StringCoding.hasNegatives` with `countPositives`. The new method does a very
> similar pass, but alters the intrinsic to return the number of leading bytes
> in the `byte[]` range which only h
On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 23:44:22 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
>> I'm requesting comments and, hopefully, some help with this patch to replace
>> `StringCoding.hasNegatives` with `countPositives`. The new method does a
>> very similar pass, but alters the intrinsic to retur
> I'm requesting comments and, hopefully, some help with this patch to replace
> `StringCoding.hasNegatives` with `countPositives`. The new method does a very
> similar pass, but alters the intrinsic to return the number of leading bytes
> in the `byte[]` range which only h
> I'm requesting comments and, hopefully, some help with this patch to replace
> `StringCoding.hasNegatives` with `countPositives`. The new method does a very
> similar pass, but alters the intrinsic to return the number of leading bytes
> in the `byte[]` range which only h
On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 16:52:54 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
>> I'm requesting comments and, hopefully, some help with this patch to replace
>> `StringCoding.hasNegatives` with `countPositives`. The new method does a
>> very similar pass, but alters the intrinsic to retur
> I'm requesting comments and, hopefully, some help with this patch to replace
> `StringCoding.hasNegatives` with `countPositives`. The new method does a very
> similar pass, but alters the intrinsic to return the number of leading bytes
> in the `byte[]` range which only h
On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 23:13:36 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
>> I'm requesting comments and, hopefully, some help with this patch to replace
>> `StringCoding.hasNegatives` with `countPositives`. The new method does a
>> very similar pass, but alters the intrinsic to retur
On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 23:13:36 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
>> I'm requesting comments and, hopefully, some help with this patch to replace
>> `StringCoding.hasNegatives` with `countPositives`. The new method does a
>> very similar pass, but alters the intrinsic to retur
> I'm requesting comments and, hopefully, some help with this patch to replace
> `StringCoding.hasNegatives` with `countPositives`. The new method does a very
> similar pass, but alters the intrinsic to return the number of leading bytes
> in the `byte[]` range which only h
> I'm requesting comments and, hopefully, some help with this patch to replace
> `StringCoding.hasNegatives` with `countPositives`. The new method does a very
> similar pass, but alters the intrinsic to return the number of leading bytes
> in the `byte[]` range which only h
On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 14:43:52 GMT, Lutz Schmidt wrote:
> I don't think the intrinsic has to be implemented on every target, but AFAICR
> it does have to be declared as an intrinsic in HotSpot.
Yeah, I got confused. To me it looks like a declaration of intent, and thought
the only strict requirem
On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 14:37:34 GMT, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > Well, it just didn't build. With the annotation being present, you also
> > > need an intrinsic implementation. That's what the error message is
> > > saying...
> >
> >
> > Doh, I had no idea the presence of `@IntrinsicCandidate` was
On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 13:31:35 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
> > Well, it just didn't build. With the annotation being present, you also
> > need an intrinsic implementation. That's what the error message is saying...
>
> Doh, I had no idea the presence of `@IntrinsicCandidate` was mandating the VM
On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 13:21:36 GMT, Lutz Schmidt wrote:
> Well, it just didn't build. With the annotation being present, you also need
> an intrinsic implementation. That's what the error message is saying...
Doh, I had no idea the presence of `@IntrinsicCandidate` was mandating the VM
has an int
On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 12:45:51 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
>>> * There are a few minor regressions (~5%) in the x86 implementation on
>>> `encode-/decodeLatin1Short`. Those regressions disappear when mixing
>>> inputs, for example `encode-/decodeShortMixed` even see a minor
>>> improvement, wh
On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 12:30:29 GMT, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > ```
> > * There are a few minor regressions (~5%) in the x86 implementation on
> > `encode-/decodeLatin1Short`. Those regressions disappear when mixing
> > inputs, for example `encode-/decodeShortMixed` even see a minor
> > improvement,
On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 12:04:47 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
>> I'm requesting comments and, hopefully, some help with this patch to replace
>> `StringCoding.hasNegatives` with `countPositives`. The new method does a
>> very similar pass, but alters the intrinsic to retur
On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 14:06:10 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
>> Claes Redestad has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 29 commits:
>>
>> - Resolve merge conflict
>> - Fix TestCountPositives to correctly allow 0 return when exp
> I'm requesting comments and, hopefully, some help with this patch to replace
> `StringCoding.hasNegatives` with `countPositives`. The new method does a very
> similar pass, but alters the intrinsic to return the number of leading bytes
> in the `byte[]` range which only h
On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 14:06:10 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
>> Claes Redestad has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 29 commits:
>>
>> - Resolve merge conflict
>> - Fix TestCountPositives to correctly allow 0 return when exp
On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 19:12:17 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
> > @theRealAph , @a74nh or someone familiar with aarch64 code, please review
> > aarch64 changes.
>
> Note that the aarch64 changes I've put in for now implements `countPositives`
> to return `0` if there's a negative value anywhere, othe
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 14:19:20 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
>> I'm requesting comments and, hopefully, some help with this patch to replace
>> `StringCoding.hasNegatives` with `countPositives`. The new method does a
>> very similar pass, but alters the intrinsic to retur
> I'm requesting comments and, hopefully, some help with this patch to replace
> `StringCoding.hasNegatives` with `countPositives`. The new method does a very
> similar pass, but alters the intrinsic to return the number of leading bytes
> in the `byte[]` range which only h
On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 19:12:17 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
>> @theRealAph , @a74nh or someone familiar with aarch64 code, please review
>> aarch64 changes.
>
>> @theRealAph , @a74nh or someone familiar with aarch64 code, please review
>> aarch64 changes.
>
> Note that the aarch64 changes I've put
On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 18:32:00 GMT, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> @theRealAph , @a74nh or someone familiar with aarch64 code, please review
> aarch64 changes.
Note that the aarch64 changes I've put in for now implements `countPositives`
to return `0` if there's a negative value anywhere, otherwise `le
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 14:19:20 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
>> I'm requesting comments and, hopefully, some help with this patch to replace
>> `StringCoding.hasNegatives` with `countPositives`. The new method does a
>> very similar pass, but alters the intrinsic to retur
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 14:19:20 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
>> I'm requesting comments and, hopefully, some help with this patch to replace
>> `StringCoding.hasNegatives` with `countPositives`. The new method does a
>> very similar pass, but alters the intrinsic to retur
> I'm requesting comments and, hopefully, some help with this patch to replace
> `StringCoding.hasNegatives` with `countPositives`. The new method does a very
> similar pass, but alters the intrinsic to return the number of leading bytes
> in the `byte[]` range which only h
> I'm requesting comments and, hopefully, some help with this patch to replace
> `StringCoding.hasNegatives` with `countPositives`. The new method does a very
> similar pass, but alters the intrinsic to return the number of leading bytes
> in the `byte[]` range which only h
> I'm requesting comments and, hopefully, some help with this patch to replace
> `StringCoding.hasNegatives` with `countPositives`. The new method does a very
> similar pass, but alters the intrinsic to return the number of leading bytes
> in the `byte[]` range which only h
> I'm requesting comments and, hopefully, some help with this patch to replace
> `StringCoding.hasNegatives` with `countPositives`. The new method does a very
> similar pass, but alters the intrinsic to return the number of leading bytes
> in the `byte[]` range which only h
On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 11:20:55 GMT, Lutz Schmidt wrote:
> Well, with the existing implementations for ppc and s390, I do not see a
> complexity advantage with a relaxed spec. The code would have to be there
> anyway.
Same for x86, but we could avoid going into and checking the tail on a negative
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 12:11:54 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
>> I'm requesting comments and, hopefully, some help with this patch to replace
>> `StringCoding.hasNegatives` with `countPositives`. The new method does a
>> very similar pass, but alters the intrinsic to retur
On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 08:25:29 GMT, Lutz Schmidt wrote:
> Hi Claes, I'm working on the s390 implementation.
Awesome, thanks!
>
> Just for clarification: the return value must be the index of the first
> negative byte?
Yes, or the length if there are no such bytes.
I've considered (and am st
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 12:11:54 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
>> I'm requesting comments and, hopefully, some help with this patch to replace
>> `StringCoding.hasNegatives` with `countPositives`. The new method does a
>> very similar pass, but alters the intrinsic to retur
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 12:11:54 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
>> I'm requesting comments and, hopefully, some help with this patch to replace
>> `StringCoding.hasNegatives` with `countPositives`. The new method does a
>> very similar pass, but alters the intrinsic to retur
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 12:11:54 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
>> I'm requesting comments and, hopefully, some help with this patch to replace
>> `StringCoding.hasNegatives` with `countPositives`. The new method does a
>> very similar pass, but alters the intrinsic to retur
> I'm requesting comments and, hopefully, some help with this patch to replace
> `StringCoding.hasNegatives` with `countPositives`. The new method does a very
> similar pass, but alters the intrinsic to return the number of leading bytes
> in the `byte[]` range which only h
On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 12:51:31 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
> I'm requesting comments and, hopefully, some help with this patch to replace
> `StringCoding.hasNegatives` with `countPositives`. The new method does a very
> similar pass, but alters the intrinsic to return the number of
On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 12:51:31 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
> I'm requesting comments and, hopefully, some help with this patch to replace
> `StringCoding.hasNegatives` with `countPositives`. The new method does a very
> similar pass, but alters the intrinsic to return the number of
I'm requesting comments and, hopefully, some help with this patch to replace
`StringCoding.hasNegatives` with `countPositives`. The new method does a very
similar pass, but alters the intrinsic to return the number of leading bytes in
the `byte[]` range which only has positive bytes.
On 2021-10-01 16:53, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
On 10/1/21 4:46 PM, Brett Okken wrote:
The current pure Java implementation does two things: it provides a
fallback
for pure-interpreter JVMs and it provides the reader with a simple
implementation.
I'm not at all sure we'd want a complex impleme
On 10/1/21 4:46 PM, Brett Okken wrote:
The current pure Java implementation does two things: it provides a fallback
for pure-interpreter JVMs and it provides the reader with a simple
implementation.
I'm not at all sure we'd want a complex implementation.
I thought this might be the case.
Hav
> The current pure Java implementation does two things: it provides a fallback
> for pure-interpreter JVMs and it provides the reader with a simple
> implementation.
> I'm not at all sure we'd want a complex implementation.
I thought this might be the case.
> Having said that, if I were looking
On 10/1/21 1:57 PM, Brett Okken wrote:
> I know java.lang.StringCoding.hasNegatives has a
> HotSpotIntrinsicCandidate annotation/implementation, but is there
> interest/value in a faster pure java implementation?
>
> Using Unsafe to read and compare 8 bytes at a time as a long is faster
> than the
I know java.lang.StringCoding.hasNegatives has a
HotSpotIntrinsicCandidate annotation/implementation, but is there
interest/value in a faster pure java implementation?
Using Unsafe to read and compare 8 bytes at a time as a long is faster
than the current simple implementation both in interpreter
51 matches
Mail list logo
