On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 16:05:32 GMT, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>> Viktor Klang has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Removing unnecessary cast of argument to VarHandle getAndSet
>
> Marked as reviewed by psandoz (Reviewer).
@PaulSandoz P
On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 11:22:26 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> I noticed when looking at the code that there was no real need to use a CHM
>> to perform the tracking of activation in an ordered fashion on
>> ForEachOrderedTask, but instead a VarHandle can be used, reducing
>> allocations and indirect
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 16:48:27 GMT, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>> Viktor Klang has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and previous
>> commits have been removed. Incremental views are not available.
>
> That's a nice find, looks good. (Update the year in the copyright header.)
@PaulSandoz Ready
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 10:53:14 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/stream/ForEachOps.java line 513:
>>
>>> 511: // of right subtree (if any, which can be this task's
>>> right sibling)
>>> 512: //
>>> 513: var leftDescendant = (For
> I noticed when looking at the code that there was no real need to use a CHM
> to perform the tracking of activation in an ordered fashion on
> ForEachOrderedTask, but instead a VarHandle can be used, reducing allocations
> and indirection.
Viktor Klang has updated the pull request incremental
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 16:11:25 GMT, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>> Viktor Klang has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and previous
>> commits have been removed. The incremental views will show differences
>> compared to the previous content of the PR. The pull request contains one
>> new commi
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 11:09:37 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> I noticed when looking at the code that there was no real need to use a CHM
>> to perform the tracking of activation in an ordered fashion on
>> ForEachOrderedTask, but instead a VarHandle can be used, reducing
>> allocations and indirec
> I noticed when looking at the code that there was no real need to use a CHM
> to perform the tracking of activation in an ordered fashion on
> ForEachOrderedTask, but instead a VarHandle can be used, reducing allocations
> and indirection.
Viktor Klang has refreshed the contents of this pull
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 09:04:21 GMT, ExE Boss wrote:
>> Viktor Klang has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains three commits:
>>
>> - Updating copyright header of ForEachOps.java and removing unnecessary
>> suppression of an
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 09:14:56 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> I noticed when looking at the code that there was no real need to use a CHM
>> to perform the tracking of activation in an ordered fashion on
>> ForEachOrderedTask, but instead a VarHandle can be used, reducing
>> allocations and indirec
> I noticed when looking at the code that there was no real need to use a CHM
> to perform the tracking of activation in an ordered fashion on
> ForEachOrderedTask, but instead a VarHandle can be used, reducing allocations
> and indirection.
Viktor Klang has updated the pull request with a new
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 16:48:27 GMT, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>> Viktor Klang has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Write the initial value of the next reference without using the VarHandle
>
> That's a nice find, looks good. (Update th
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 16:48:27 GMT, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>> Viktor Klang has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Write the initial value of the next reference without using the VarHandle
>
> That's a nice find, looks good. (Update th
> I noticed when looking at the code that there was no real need to use a CHM
> to perform the tracking of activation in an ordered fashion on
> ForEachOrderedTask, but instead a VarHandle can be used, reducing allocations
> and indirection.
Viktor Klang has updated the pull request incremental
On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 02:40:01 GMT, ExE Boss wrote:
>> Viktor Klang has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Write the initial value of the next reference without using the VarHandle
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/stream/
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 11:39:21 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> I noticed when looking at the code that there was no real need to use a CHM
>> to perform the tracking of activation in an ordered fashion on
>> ForEachOrderedTask, but instead a VarHandle can be used, reducing
>> allocations and indirec
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 11:39:21 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> I noticed when looking at the code that there was no real need to use a CHM
>> to perform the tracking of activation in an ordered fashion on
>> ForEachOrderedTask, but instead a VarHandle can be used, reducing
>> allocations and indirec
On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 22:01:01 GMT, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>> @PaulSandoz I'm usually a bit weary of piggybacking if it is not done on the
>> same object, as future reorderings of the code might break that assumption.
>> I wouldn't want to break anything silently so I made a rather conservative
>> c
> I noticed when looking at the code that there was no real need to use a CHM
> to perform the tracking of activation in an ordered fashion on
> ForEachOrderedTask, but instead a VarHandle can be used, reducing allocations
> and indirection.
Viktor Klang has updated the pull request incremental
On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 19:44:35 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/stream/ForEachOps.java line 431:
>>
>>> 429: // leftChild and rightChild were just created and not
>>> fork():ed
>>> 430: // yet so no need for a volatile write
>>> 431
On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 17:10:17 GMT, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>> I noticed when looking at the code that there was no real need to use a CHM
>> to perform the tracking of activation in an ordered fashion on
>> ForEachOrderedTask, but instead a VarHandle can be used, reducing
>> allocations and indirect
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 10:57:58 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
> I noticed when looking at the code that there was no real need to use a CHM
> to perform the tracking of activation in an ordered fashion on
> ForEachOrderedTask, but instead a VarHandle can be used, reducing allocations
> and indirection
On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 15:01:34 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
>> I noticed when looking at the code that there was no real need to use a CHM
>> to perform the tracking of activation in an ordered fashion on
>> ForEachOrderedTask, but instead a VarHandle can be used, reducing
>> allocations and indirect
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 10:57:58 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
> I noticed when looking at the code that there was no real need to use a CHM
> to perform the tracking of activation in an ordered fashion on
> ForEachOrderedTask, but instead a VarHandle can be used, reducing allocations
> and indirection
I noticed when looking at the code that there was no real need to use a CHM to
perform the tracking of activation in an ordered fashion on ForEachOrderedTask,
but instead a VarHandle can be used, reducing allocations and indirection.
-
Commit messages:
- JDK-8302666: Replace CHM wi
25 matches
Mail list logo
