one more question, just for interest:
Can you see any performance difference between
sp != sl
and
sp < sl
?
-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
Ulf Zibis wrote:
Maybe:
for (int sl = sp + (sr <= dr ? sr : dr); sp != sl; sp++, dp++)
is little more faster than:
for (int sl = sp + (sr <= dr ? sr : dr); sp < sl; sp++, dp++)
-Ulf
Am 15.12.2008 21:56, Ulf Zibis schrieb:
Maybe little faster, especially for short strings:
private CoderResult decodeArrayLoop(ByteBuffer src, CharBuffer
dst) {
byte[] sa = src.array();
int sp = src.arrayOffset() + src.position();
int sr = src.remaining(); // faster than ...
src.arrayOffset() + src.limit()
char[] da = dst.array();
int dp = dst.arrayOffset() + dst.position();
int dr = dst.remaining(); // dl is never used
for (int sl = sp + (sr <= dr ? sr : dr); sp < sl; sp++, dp++)
if ((da[dp] = decode(sa[sp])) == UNMAPPABLE_DECODING)
return
withResult(CoderResult.unmappableForLength(1), src, sp, dst, dp);
return withResult(sr <= dr ? CoderResult.UNDERFLOW :
CoderResult.OVERFLOW, src, sp, dst, dp);
}
Regards,
Ulf
