Wow, very fast, your answer :-)
Maybe you can also examine this:
private CoderResult decodeArrayLoop(ByteBuffer src, CharBuffer
dst) {
byte[] sa = src.array();
int sp = src.arrayOffset() + src.position();
int sr = src.remaining();
char[] da = dst.array();
int dp = dst.arrayOffset() + dst.position();
int dr = dst.remaining();
int sl;
CoderResult cr;
if (sr <= dr) {
sl = sp + sr;
cr = CoderResult.UNDERFLOW;
} else {
sl = sp + dr;
cr = CoderResult.OVERFLOW;
}
for (; sp != sl; sp++, dp++) {
char c = decode(sa[sp]);
if (c == UNMAPPABLE_DECODING)
return
withResult(CoderResult.unmappableForLength(1), src, sp, dst, dp);
da[dp] = c;
}
return withResult(cr, src, sp, dst, dp);
}
... but I think, my first version is more elegant. ;-)
-Ulf
Am 15.12.2008 23:19, Xueming Shen schrieb:
The gain from doing
int sr = src.remaining();
int dr = dst.remaining();
Ulf, thanks for looking into the changes.
It might not be a good idea to skip the temporary variable c in the
loop, I'm not sure
it's a good idea to put an "un-mappable" char into the output buffer
in case we have
a un-mappable though yes we don't not change the buffer position. This
actually is
all most all the gain come from in -server vm case when I run my
benchmark.
However in "client" vm case, interestingly I do see some performance
gain with
your proposed change, though I'm not sure why the loop gets faster
with a quick
look. So I have created a new Cr #6785335 to keep trace this issue.
Will consider
put this one into 7 later.
Thanks again!
Sherman
