On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 04:16:11 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
> ok, but perhaps you can shrink it further, if it does not hurt performance,
> by subtracting 0x20 before indexing and cut the table to 64 bytes.
If you use DIGITS of size 54, performance will be 10% slower, The code is
written like this:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 14:30:18 GMT, 温绍锦 wrote:
>> In the improvement of @cl4es PR #15591, the advantages of non-lookup-table
>> were discussed.
>>
>> But if the input is byte[], using lookup table can improve performance.
>>
>> For HexFormat#formatHex(Appendable, byte[]) and HexFormat#formatHex(
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 14:30:18 GMT, 温绍锦 wrote:
>> In the improvement of @cl4es PR #15591, the advantages of non-lookup-table
>> were discussed.
>>
>> But if the input is byte[], using lookup table can improve performance.
>>
>> For HexFormat#formatHex(Appendable, byte[]) and HexFormat#formatHex(
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 14:30:18 GMT, 温绍锦 wrote:
>> In the improvement of @cl4es PR #15591, the advantages of non-lookup-table
>> were discussed.
>>
>> But if the input is byte[], using lookup table can improve performance.
>>
>> For HexFormat#formatHex(Appendable, byte[]) and HexFormat#formatHex(
> In the improvement of @cl4es PR #15591, the advantages of non-lookup-table
> were discussed.
>
> But if the input is byte[], using lookup table can improve performance.
>
> For HexFormat#formatHex(Appendable, byte[]) and HexFormat#formatHex(byte[]),
> If the length of byte[] is larger, the pe
