StringBuilder version of java.util.regex.Matcher.append* (original) (raw)

Jeremy Manson jeremymanson at google.com
Tue Mar 25 21:07:59 UTC 2014


Okay. Thanks, Sherman. Here's an updated version.

I've diverged a bit from Peter's version. In this version, appendExpandedReplacement takes a StringBuilder. The implications is that In the StringBuilder case, it saves creating a new StringBuilder object. In the StringBuffer case, it creates a new StringBuilder, but it doesn't have to acquire and release all of those locks.

I also noticed a redundant cast to (int), which I removed.

Jeremy

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Xueming Shen <xueming.shen at oracle.com>wrote:

let's add the StringBuilder method(s), if you can provide an updated version, I can run the rest (since it's to add new api, there is an internal CCC process need to go through).

-Sherman

On 3/21/14 5:18 PM, Jeremy Manson wrote: So, this is all a little opaque to me. How do we make the go/no-go decision on something like this? Everyone who has chimed in seems to think it is a good idea. Jeremy On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Jeremy Manson <jeremymanson at google.com>wrote: Sherman,

If you had released it then (which you wouldn't have been able to do, because you would have to wait another two years for Java 7), you would have found that it improved performance even with C2. It is only post-escape-analysis that the performance in C2 equalized. Anyway, I think adding the StringBuilder variant and deferring / dealing with the Appendable differently is the right approach, FWIW. Jeremy

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Xueming Shen <xueming.shen at oracle.com>wrote: 2009? I do have something similar back to 2009 :-) http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/regexreplace/webrev/ Then the ball was dropped around the discussion of whether or not the IOE should be thrown. But if we are going to/have to have explicit StringBuilder/Buffer pair anyway, then we can keep the Appendable version as private for now and deal with the StringBuilder and Appendable as two separate issues. -Sherman

On 03/20/2014 09:52 AM, Jeremy Manson wrote: That's definitely an improvement - I think that when I wrote this (circa 2009), I didn't think about Appendable. I take it my argument convinced someone? :) Jeremy

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:32 AM, Peter Levart<peter.levart at gmail.com_ _>wrote: On 03/19/2014 06:51 PM, Jeremy Manson wrote: I'm told that the diff didn't make it. I've put it in a Google drive folder... https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BGaXa6O4K5LY3Y0aHpranM3aEU/ edit?usp=sharing Jeremy Hi Jeremy, Your factoring-out of expandReplacement() method exposed an opportunity to further optimize the code. Instead of creating intermediate StringBuilder instance for each expandReplacement() call, this method could append directly to resulting StringBuffer/StringBuilder, like in the following: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk9-dev/MatcherWithStringBuilder/ webrev.01/

Regards, Peter

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Jeremy Manson<_ _jeremymanson at google.com> wrote: Hi folks, We've had this internally for a while, and I keep meaning to bring it up here. The Matcher class has a few public methods that take StringBuffers, and we've found it useful to add similar versions that take StringBuilders. It has two benefits: - Users don't have to convert from one to the other when they want to use the method in question. The symmetry is nice. - The StringBuilder variants are faster (if lock optimizations don't kick in, which happens in the interpreter and the client compiler). For interpreted / client-compiled code, we saw something like a 25% speedup on String.replaceAll(), which calls into this code. Any interest? Diff attached. Jeremy

-------------- next part -------------- diff --git a/src/share/classes/java/util/regex/Matcher.java b/src/share/classes/java/util/regex/Matcher.java --- a/src/share/classes/java/util/regex/Matcher.java +++ b/src/share/classes/java/util/regex/Matcher.java @@ -65,7 +65,8 @@

@@ -852,8 +957,8 @@ cursor++; } else { // The first number is always a group - refNum = (int)nextChar - '0'; - if ((refNum < 0)||(refNum > 9)) + refNum = nextChar - '0'; + if ((refNum < 0) || (refNum > 9)) throw new IllegalArgumentException( "Illegal group reference"); cursor++; @@ -864,7 +969,7 @@ break; } int nextDigit = replacement.charAt(cursor) - '0'; - if ((nextDigit < 0)||(nextDigit > 9)) { // not a number + if ((nextDigit < 0) || (nextDigit > 9)) { // not a number break; } int newRefNum = (refNum * 10) + nextDigit; @@ -884,13 +989,7 @@ cursor++; } } - // Append the intervening text - sb.append(text, lastAppendPosition, first); - // Append the match substitution - sb.append(result);

@@ -913,6 +1012,25 @@ }

 /**

@@ -1000,7 +1118,7 @@ reset(); if (!find()) return text.toString();



More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list