Unsafe.{get,put}-X-Unaligned performance (original) (raw)

Vitaly Davidovich vitalyd at gmail.com
Wed Mar 11 17:38:37 UTC 2015

private static final ByteOrder byteOrder 571 = unsafe.isBigEndian() ? ByteOrder.BIG_ENDIAN : ByteOrder.LITTLE_ENDIAN; 572 573 static ByteOrder byteOrder() { 574 if (byteOrder == null) 575 throw new Error("Unknown byte order"); 576 return byteOrder; 577 } 578

No need for null check in byteOrder() anymore, right?

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> wrote:

On 03/11/2015 07:10 AM, John Rose wrote: >> >> John: I'm waiting for an answer to my question here before I submit >> a webrev for approval. >> >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/panama-dev/2015-March/000099.html > > (Answered.)

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aph/unaligned.jdk.5/ http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aph/unaligned.hotspot.5/ I hope everybody is happy with this, or at least not so unhappy that they would want to reject it altogether. There is no bug ID for this yet. John, would you like to create a bug database entry? If not, I'll do so. Then I can go for a RFR, which hopefully should be a shoo-in now that we've beaten this thing to death. :-) Andrew. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/attachments/20150311/6ebcdf55/attachment.html>

More information about the hotspot-compiler-dev mailing list