(CR#6553074) Unnecessary array copy in AbstractStringBuilder.indexOf(String)?

[Mike Duigou]

I didn't attempt to evaluate that or refactor it in this round. Something for a future patch. A simplification/refactoring patch for indexOf/lastIndexOf would certainly be welcome.

Mike

On Nov 19 2012, at 13:12 , Ulf Zibis wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I'm wondering, if we still need
> 1739     static int indexOf(char[] source, int sourceOffset, int sourceCount,
> 1740             char[] target, int targetOffset, int targetCount,
> 1741             int fromIndex) {
> since bug 6924259: Remove offset and count fields from java.lang.String.
> 
> I guess we only need
> 1739     static int indexOf(char[] source, int sourceCount,
> 1740             char[] target, int fromIndex) {
> anymore.
> 
> -Ulf
> 
> Am 19.11.2012 18:49, schrieb Mike Duigou:
>> By amazing coincidence a review for fixing this was issued last week:
>> 
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2012-November/012266.html
>> 
>> Additional review would be welcome. :-)
>> 
>> The patch will probably be ready for push before the end of the month.
>> 
>> Mike
>> 
>> On Nov 19 2012, at 07:46 , Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello all
>>> 
>>> I noticed that AbstractStringBuilder.indexOf(String, int) is implemented as below:
>>> 
>>>    public int indexOf(String str, int fromIndex) {
>>>        return String.indexOf(value, 0, count,
>>>                              str.toCharArray(), 0, str.length(), fromIndex);
>>>    }
>>> 
>>> The call to str.toCharArray() creates a copy of the String.value char[] array. This copy doesn't seem necessary since the above String.indexOf(...) method doesn't modify the array content. Shouldn't AbstractStringBuilder passes directly the reference to the String internal array instead, maybe using package-privated access to the array?
>>> 
>>> Admittedly the cloned array is usually small, but the call to indexOf(String, int) is often done in a loop.
>>> 
>>>    Martin
>>> 
>> 
>