dweiss commented on code in PR #13936:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13936#discussion_r1808146179
##########
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/util/PriorityQueue.java:
##########
@@ -270,7 +280,7 @@ public final boolean remove(T element) {
return false;
}
- private final boolean upHeap(int origPos) {
+ private boolean upHeap(int origPos, T[] heap) {
Review Comment:
> the compiler can't hoist the field access out of the loop I think (maybe
in some happy cases escape analysis helps here).
I don't think there's anything in the spec preventing it from doing so. The
final keyword is indeed for the java compiler, not for the jvm, but... you know
- it's easy to show that c2 can happily hoist out field reads, try it.
```
public final class SuperSoft {
private static boolean ready;
public static void startThread() {
new Thread() {
public void run() {
try {
sleep(2000);
} catch (Exception e) { /* ignore */ }
System.out.println("Marking loop exit.");
ready = true;
}
}.start();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
startThread();
System.out.println("Entering the loop...");
while (!ready) {
// Do nothing.
}
System.out.println("Done, I left the loop!");
}
}
```
This aside, I am not rejecting the change - I just suggested to rename one
local variable (s) and to remove method parameter in favor of a single local
variable read - this should result in identical code to what your 1% gain was
producing, if my gut feeling is right.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
