String concatenation tweaks

Maurizio Cimadamore maurizio.cimadamore at
Thu Jun 4 11:50:33 UTC 2015

On 04/06/15 11:02, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> FULL_MH and NAIVE_MH_FILTER_SIZED are slower at low sizes, and start to
> win on large ones, once they start to guess the final length right, and
> compensate for the additional steps to compute the length with that
> improvement.
> The goal for current benchmarking was to explore if we can move the code
> into runtime without prohibitive performance regressions (and there is
> no throughput regressions for INNER!), and to explore if other
> strategies can be employed (and they can, but they require more
> polishing if we want to switch to them).
So, if I parse correctly, it seems that either FULL_MH and 
NAIVE_MH_FILTER_SIZED wins on large size, but are considerably slower at 
lower sizes. On the other hand, INNER_SIZED seems like the best across 
the board?


More information about the compiler-dev mailing list