https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69419
--- Comment #7 from John Engebretson ---
This change reached production and had a greater-than-expected impact, totaling
approximately 0.2% of cpu. I can't explain the gap but hypothesize the lack of
recursion enabled inlining, which enables f
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69419
--- Comment #6 from John Engebretson ---
Validated. Thanks! :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsub
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69419
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69419
--- Comment #4 from Mark Thomas ---
I see similar improvements (~50%) with just the simple patch but even better
improvements (~75%) with a variation of the full patch.
Just running some tests. Will commit shortly if all is good.
--
You are
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69419
John Engebretson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69419
--- Comment #2 from John Engebretson ---
Thank you! :) Nice upgrades, much simpler.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubscri
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69419
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69419
John Engebretson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Redundant code execution in |Redundant code execution in
