> Through JVM Option +PrintInlining, we found that String has a constructor
> codeSize of 852, which is too large. This caused failed to inline.
>
> The following is the output information of PrintInlining:
>
> @ 9 java.lang.String:: (12 bytes) inline (hot)
> !m
On Mon, 26 May 2025 13:23:07 GMT, Shaojin Wen wrote:
>> Through JVM Option +PrintInlining, we found that String has a constructor
>> codeSize of 852, which is too large. This caused failed to inline.
>>
>> The following is the output information of PrintInlining:
>>
>> @ 9 ja
> Through JVM Option +PrintInlining, we found that String has a constructor
> codeSize of 852, which is too large. This caused failed to inline.
>
> The following is the output information of PrintInlining:
>
> @ 9 java.lang.String:: (12 bytes) inline (hot)
> !m
On Mon, 26 May 2025 12:00:02 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
>> I thought this would both increase cleaniness and reduce code size of the
>> decode method. @minborg What do you think? This also removes one of the
>> switches on COMPACT_STRING.
>
> I think it is better to keep the code smaller rather th
On Sun, 25 May 2025 12:54:03 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
>> private String(char[] value, int off, int len, Void sig) {
>> if (len == 0) {
>> this.value = "".value;
>> this.coder = "".coder;
>> return;
>> }
>> if (COMPACT_STRINGS) {
>>
On Sun, 25 May 2025 06:27:14 GMT, Shaojin Wen wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/String.java line 703:
>>
>>> 701: throw new Error(x);
>>> 702: }
>>> 703: if (COMPACT_STRINGS) {
>>
>> Now we can call other constructors of String, so instead o
On Sun, 25 May 2025 04:39:24 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
>> Shaojin Wen has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> create method share variant val & coder
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/String.java line 703:
>
>> 701:
> Through JVM Option +PrintInlining, we found that String has a constructor
> codeSize of 852, which is too large. This caused failed to inline.
>
> The following is the output information of PrintInlining:
>
> @ 9 java.lang.String:: (12 bytes) inline (hot)
> !m
> Through JVM Option +PrintInlining, we found that String has a constructor
> codeSize of 852, which is too large. This caused failed to inline.
>
> The following is the output information of PrintInlining:
>
> @ 9 java.lang.String:: (12 bytes) inline (hot)
> !m
On Sun, 25 May 2025 04:47:35 GMT, Shaojin Wen wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/String.java line 569:
>>
>>> 567: }
>>> 568: this.value = str.value;
>>> 569: this.coder = str.coder;
>>
>> Suggestion:
>>
>> this(str);
>>
>> We have integrated flexi
On Sun, 25 May 2025 04:40:44 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
>> Shaojin Wen has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> create method share variant val & coder
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/String.java line 569:
>
>> 567:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 02:11:34 GMT, Shaojin Wen wrote:
>> Through JVM Option +PrintInlining, we found that String has a constructor
>> codeSize of 852, which is too large. This caused failed to inline.
>>
>> The following is the output information of PrintInlining:
>>
>> @ 9 ja
On Tue, 20 May 2025 08:26:20 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
> I wonder if it would be better to first check `COMPACT_STRINGS` in a
> first-level `if` and then branch off to separate support methods? Looking at
> the comments near the declaration of `COMPACT_STRINGS`, this might provide
> additional b
On Tue, 20 May 2025 02:11:34 GMT, Shaojin Wen wrote:
>> Through JVM Option +PrintInlining, we found that String has a constructor
>> codeSize of 852, which is too large. This caused failed to inline.
>>
>> The following is the output information of PrintInlining:
>>
>> @ 9 ja
> Through JVM Option +PrintInlining, we found that String has a constructor
> codeSize of 852, which is too large. This caused failed to inline.
>
> The following is the output information of PrintInlining:
>
> @ 9 java.lang.String:: (12 bytes) inline (hot)
> !m
> Through JVM Option +PrintInlining, we found that String has a constructor
> codeSize of 852, which is too large. This caused failed to inline.
>
> The following is the output information of PrintInlining:
>
> @ 9 java.lang.String:: (12 bytes) inline (hot)
> !m
On Tue, 20 May 2025 01:21:34 GMT, Shaojin Wen wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/String.java line 690:
>>
>>> 688: .onUnmappableCharacter(CodingErrorAction.REPLACE);
>>> 689: char[] ca = new char[en];
>>> 690: int caLen = decodeWithDecoder(cd, ca, byt
On Sun, 18 May 2025 20:44:12 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
>> Through JVM Option +PrintInlining, we found that String has a constructor
>> codeSize of 852, which is too large. This caused failed to inline.
>>
>> The following is the output information of PrintInlining:
>>
>> @ 9 jav
On Sun, 18 May 2025 12:48:07 GMT, Shaojin Wen wrote:
> Through JVM Option +PrintInlining, we found that String has a constructor
> codeSize of 852, which is too large. This caused failed to inline.
>
> The following is the output information of PrintInlining:
>
> @ 9 java.lan
On Sun, 18 May 2025 12:48:07 GMT, Shaojin Wen wrote:
> Through JVM Option +PrintInlining, we found that String has a constructor
> codeSize of 852, which is too large. This caused failed to inline.
>
> The following is the output information of PrintInlining:
>
> @ 9 java.lan
Through JVM Option +PrintInlining, we found that String has a constructor
codeSize of 852, which is too large. This caused failed to inline.
The following is the output information of PrintInlining:
@ 9 java.lang.String:: (12 bytes) inline (hot)
!m @ 1 java.
21 matches
Mail list logo
