On Thu, 16 May 2024 14:11:47 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
> > > Do we have any performance tests available to see if there are any
> > > potential impacts?
> >
> >
> > I've run all micro benchmarks whose name match `LoopOver*`. No regression
> > was found. Few benchmarks seems a tad
On Wed, 22 May 2024 21:03:57 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> Maurizio Cimadamore has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Fix typo in javadoc
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/invoke/X-VarHandleSegmentView.java.template
>
On Tue, 21 May 2024 10:20:27 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>> When creating a nested memory access var handle, we ensure that the segment
>> is accessed at the correct alignment for the root layout being accessed. But
>> we do not ensure that the segment has at least the size of the
On Tue, 21 May 2024 10:20:27 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>> When creating a nested memory access var handle, we ensure that the segment
>> is accessed at the correct alignment for the root layout being accessed. But
>> we do not ensure that the segment has at least the size of the
> When creating a nested memory access var handle, we ensure that the segment
> is accessed at the correct alignment for the root layout being accessed. But
> we do not ensure that the segment has at least the size of the accessed root
> layout. Example:
>
>
> MemoryLayout LAYOUT =
On Mon, 20 May 2024 16:42:19 GMT, Paul Sandoz wrote:
> some additional overhead e.g.,
>
> ```
> if (derefAdapters.length == 0) {
> // insert align check for the root layout on the initial MS +
> offset
> List> coordinateTypes = handle.coordinateTypes();
>
On Mon, 20 May 2024 16:31:18 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>
> Ah, got it. You mean more support in VarHandleGuards. Yes, I have a separate
> patch for that (actually had that for quite a while), but we're not super
> sure how to evaluate what impact it has :-)
Ah, i did not realize that.
On Mon, 20 May 2024 09:45:31 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
> > Separately, we might be missing a few long argument accepting guard methods
> > for simpler cases as I suspect they are still focused more on int index
> > types.
>
> Not sure I understand what guard methods you are referring
On Fri, 17 May 2024 23:42:17 GMT, Paul Sandoz wrote:
> Separately, we might be missing a few long argument accepting guard methods
> for simpler cases as I suspect they are still focused more on int index types.
Not sure I understand what guard methods you are referring to here?
-
On Thu, 16 May 2024 14:37:15 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>> When creating a nested memory access var handle, we ensure that the segment
>> is accessed at the correct alignment for the root layout being accessed. But
>> we do not ensure that the segment has at least the size of the
On Fri, 17 May 2024 15:54:04 GMT, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>> Maurizio Cimadamore has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Fix copyrights
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/foreign/MemoryLayout.java line 630:
>
>> 628: *
On Thu, 16 May 2024 14:37:15 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>> When creating a nested memory access var handle, we ensure that the segment
>> is accessed at the correct alignment for the root layout being accessed. But
>> we do not ensure that the segment has at least the size of the
> When creating a nested memory access var handle, we ensure that the segment
> is accessed at the correct alignment for the root layout being accessed. But
> we do not ensure that the segment has at least the size of the accessed root
> layout. Example:
>
>
> MemoryLayout LAYOUT =
On Thu, 16 May 2024 14:34:41 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>> When creating a nested memory access var handle, we ensure that the segment
>> is accessed at the correct alignment for the root layout being accessed. But
>> we do not ensure that the segment has at least the size of the
On Thu, 16 May 2024 13:55:15 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
> > Do we have any performance tests available to see if there are any
> > potential impacts?
>
> I've run all micro benchmarks whose name match `LoopOver*`. No regression was
> found. Few benchmarks seems a tad faster, but the
On Thu, 16 May 2024 11:18:18 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
> Do we have any performance tests available to see if there are any potential
> impacts?
I've run all micro benchmarks whose name match `LoopOver*`. No regression was
found. Few benchmarks seems a tad faster, but the percentages are so
On Wed, 15 May 2024 15:43:45 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
> When creating a nested memory access var handle, we ensure that the segment
> is accessed at the correct alignment for the root layout being accessed. But
> we do not ensure that the segment has at least the size of the accessed
On Thu, 16 May 2024 10:54:15 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>> When creating a nested memory access var handle, we ensure that the segment
>> is accessed at the correct alignment for the root layout being accessed. But
>> we do not ensure that the segment has at least the size of the
On Wed, 15 May 2024 15:43:45 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
> When creating a nested memory access var handle, we ensure that the segment
> is accessed at the correct alignment for the root layout being accessed. But
> we do not ensure that the segment has at least the size of the accessed
When creating a nested memory access var handle, we ensure that the segment is
accessed at the correct alignment for the root layout being accessed. But we do
not ensure that the segment has at least the size of the accessed root layout.
Example:
MemoryLayout LAYOUT = sequenceLayout(2,
20 matches
Mail list logo
