On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 18:45:44 GMT, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>>> Testing results seem good. Except one strange failure I put in
>>> [JDK-8143900](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8143900) comment. You
>>> need second review.
>>
>> This seems related to https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-829691
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 02:16:21 GMT, Yi Yang wrote:
>> Hi, can I have a review for this patch? I noticed a strange field
>> Integer.sizeTable which is used by PhaseStringOpts, after digging into the
>> history, I think it could be replaced by an in-place array allocation and
>> initialization. Be
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 02:04:13 GMT, Yi Yang wrote:
> > Testing results seem good. Except one strange failure I put in
> > [JDK-8143900](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8143900) comment. You
> > need second review.
>
> This seems related to https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8296914
[JDK-82
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 02:16:21 GMT, Yi Yang wrote:
>> Hi, can I have a review for this patch? I noticed a strange field
>> Integer.sizeTable which is used by PhaseStringOpts, after digging into the
>> history, I think it could be replaced by an in-place array allocation and
>> initialization. Be
> Hi, can I have a review for this patch? I noticed a strange field
> Integer.sizeTable which is used by PhaseStringOpts, after digging into the
> history, I think it could be replaced by an in-place array allocation and
> initialization. Before it, we are fetching from Integer.sizeTable and get
On Sat, 25 Feb 2023 01:34:40 GMT, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> Testing results seem good. Except one strange failure I put in
> [JDK-8143900](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8143900) comment. You need
> second review.
This seems related to https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8296914
-
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 10:19:49 GMT, Yi Yang wrote:
>> Hi, can I have a review for this patch? I noticed a strange field
>> Integer.sizeTable which is used by PhaseStringOpts, after digging into the
>> history, I think it could be replaced by an in-place array allocation and
>> initialization. Be
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 10:19:49 GMT, Yi Yang wrote:
>> Hi, can I have a review for this patch? I noticed a strange field
>> Integer.sizeTable which is used by PhaseStringOpts, after digging into the
>> history, I think it could be replaced by an in-place array allocation and
>> initialization. Be
On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 02:29:44 GMT, Yi Yang wrote:
> Hi, can I have a review for this patch? I noticed a strange field
> Integer.sizeTable which is used by PhaseStringOpts, after digging into the
> history, I think it could be replaced by an in-place array allocation and
> initialization. Before
> Hi, can I have a review for this patch? I noticed a strange field
> Integer.sizeTable which is used by PhaseStringOpts, after digging into the
> history, I think it could be replaced by an in-place array allocation and
> initialization. Before it, we are fetching from Integer.sizeTable and get
Hi, can I have a review for this patch? I noticed a strange field
Integer.sizeTable, after digging into its history, I think it could be replaced
by an in-place array allocation and initialization.
Thanks.
-
Commit messages:
- 8143900 OptimizeStringConcat has an opaque dependency
11 matches
Mail list logo