Re: RFR: 8255299: Drop explicit zeroing at instantiation of Atomic* objects [v2]

2020-10-28 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 08:56:05 GMT, Сергей Цыпанов wrote: >> FYI it is better to use merge, instead of rebase+force push. Rebase breaks >> history and all existed code comments. > > @mrserb thanks for pointing this out! Thanks for updating with latest master changes Sergey! My tests were all gre

Re: RFR: 8255299: Drop explicit zeroing at instantiation of Atomic* objects [v2]

2020-10-28 Thread Сергей Цыпанов
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 08:49:38 GMT, Sergey Bylokhov wrote: >> Rebased onto master to have the fix introduced in >> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/778 > > FYI it is better to use merge, instead of rebase+force push. Rebase breaks > history and all existed code comments. @mrserb thanks for po

Re: RFR: 8255299: Drop explicit zeroing at instantiation of Atomic* objects [v2]

2020-10-28 Thread Sergey Bylokhov
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 08:40:02 GMT, Сергей Цыпанов wrote: >> client changes are fine > > Rebased onto master to have the fix introduced in > https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/778 FYI it is better to use merge, instead of rebase+force push. Rebase breaks history and all existed code comments.

Re: RFR: 8255299: Drop explicit zeroing at instantiation of Atomic* objects [v2]

2020-10-28 Thread Сергей Цыпанов
> As discussed in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/510 there is never a > reason to explicitly instantiate any instance of `Atomic*` class with its > default value, i.e. `new AtomicInteger(0)` could be replaced with `new > AtomicInteger()` which is faster: > @State(Scope.Thread) > @OutputTime

Re: RFR: 8255299: Drop explicit zeroing at instantiation of Atomic* objects [v2]

2020-10-28 Thread Сергей Цыпанов
On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 23:12:09 GMT, Phil Race wrote: >> Сергей Цыпанов has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a >> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes >> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains one additional >> commit si

Re: RFR: 8255299: Drop explicit zeroing at instantiation of Atomic* objects

2020-10-24 Thread Phil Race
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 20:46:15 GMT, Сергей Цыпанов wrote: > As discussed in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/510 there is never a > reason to explicitly instantiate any instance of `Atomic*` class with its > default value, i.e. `new AtomicInteger(0)` could be replaced with `new > AtomicInteg

Re: RFR: 8255299: Drop explicit zeroing at instantiation of Atomic* objects

2020-10-23 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 09:14:48 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote: >> The changes in src/java.desktop looks fine. > > Changes to `java.logging` and `java.net.http` also look good to me. Hi Sergey, I'll give it some testing and sponsor it next week unless someone else steps up. best regards, -- daniel

Re: RFR: 8255299: Drop explicit zeroing at instantiation of Atomic* objects

2020-10-23 Thread Сергей Цыпанов
On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 09:12:15 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote: >> As discussed in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/510 there is never a >> reason to explicitly instantiate any instance of `Atomic*` class with its >> default value, i.e. `new AtomicInteger(0)` could be replaced with `new >> AtomicInte

Re: RFR: 8255299: Drop explicit zeroing at instantiation of Atomic* objects

2020-10-23 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 08:15:00 GMT, Sergey Bylokhov wrote: >> As discussed in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/510 there is never a >> reason to explicitly instantiate any instance of `Atomic*` class with its >> default value, i.e. `new AtomicInteger(0)` could be replaced with `new >> AtomicI

Re: RFR: 8255299: Drop explicit zeroing at instantiation of Atomic* objects

2020-10-23 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 20:46:15 GMT, Сергей Цыпанов wrote: > As discussed in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/510 there is never a > reason to explicitly instantiate any instance of `Atomic*` class with its > default value, i.e. `new AtomicInteger(0)` could be replaced with `new > AtomicInteg

Re: RFR: 8255299: Drop explicit zeroing at instantiation of Atomic* objects

2020-10-23 Thread Sergey Bylokhov
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 20:46:15 GMT, Сергей Цыпанов wrote: > As discussed in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/510 there is never a > reason to explicitly instantiate any instance of `Atomic*` class with its > default value, i.e. `new AtomicInteger(0)` could be replaced with `new > AtomicInteg

Re: RFR: 8255299: Drop explicit zeroing at instantiation of Atomic* objects

2020-10-23 Thread Claes Redestad
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 20:46:15 GMT, Сергей Цыпанов wrote: > As discussed in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/510 there is never a > reason to explicitly instantiate any instance of `Atomic*` class with its > default value, i.e. `new AtomicInteger(0)` could be replaced with `new > AtomicInteg

RFR: 8255299: Drop explicit zeroing at instantiation of Atomic* objects

2020-10-23 Thread Сергей Цыпанов
As discussed in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/510 there is never a reason to explicitly instantiate any instance of `Atomic*` class with its default value, i.e. `new AtomicInteger(0)` could be replaced with `new AtomicInteger()` which is faster: @State(Scope.Thread) @OutputTimeUnit(TimeUni

Re: RFR: 8255299: Drop explicit zeroing at instantiation of Atomic* objects

2020-10-23 Thread Claes Redestad
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 20:46:15 GMT, Сергей Цыпанов wrote: > As discussed in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/510 there is never a > reason to explicitly instantiate any instance of `Atomic*` class with its > default value, i.e. `new AtomicInteger(0)` could be replaced with `new > AtomicInteg