>>>>> "Per" == Per Bothner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Per> Tom Tromey wrote: >> While investigating I realized that we would also lose a small >> optimization related to String "+" operations. When translating from >> .java we currently use a non-synchronizing variant of StringBuffer to >> do this. Per> In Java-5-mode I would expect ecj to use the unsynchronized Per> java.lang.StringBuilder. If not, I'd consider it a bug. Yeah. StringBuilder isn't as nice as our private StringBuffer, though, because it requires copying the character data when toString is invoked. IMNSHO this is a design bug, but we're stuck with it. Per> A desirable optimization would be to convert local (non-escaping) Per> uses of StringBuffer/StringBuilder to be stack allocated. You Per> could even stack-allocate the actual buffer up to a limited size, Per> only heap-allocating when it gets over that size. Yeah, that would be good. We could fix the toString semantics thing using the same machinery. I know David Daney was looking in this area a bit, I don't know what became of it though. Tom
