hg: jdk8/tl/jdk: 8008167: IdentityHashMap.[keySet|values|entrySet].toArray speed-up

[Peter Levart]

Hi Mike,

I thought I saw that too when you commited the change, but then 
re-examinig the whole source in detail, I couldn't spot it again. I must 
have stared at the wrong third of change...

Regards, Peter

On 02/24/2013 07:53 PM, Mike Duigou wrote:
> Ouch, this would have been introduced by me.
>
> I will check to see how this could have passed the pre-commit regression testing. I suspect that a regression test needs to be improved.
>
> Mike
>
> On Feb 24 2013, at 10:48 , Alan Bateman wrote:
>
>> On 24/02/2013 15:49, Peter Levart wrote:
>>> Hi Alan,
>>>
>>> I checked and it seems all 3 IHM views [keySet|values|entrySet] have a fail-fast iterator implementation (IdentityHashMap.IdentityHashMapIterator) and all 3 are (were) using the iterator for .toArray implementations. So this patch tries to preserve the behavior when there is a concurrent modification (which is only possible from other thread and is illegal usage anyway since IHM is not thread-safe) while executing the toArray methods on the views...
>>>
>>> Do you see something I don't see?
>> My apologies, I see it does check the modification count in IdentityHashMapIterator.nextIndex.
>>
>> However, as this forced me to looks at the changes-set again then the copy loop in Values.toArray has caught by eye:
>>
>>              for (int si = 0; si < tab.length; si += 2) {
>>                  if (tab[si++] != null) { // key present ?
>>                      // more elements than expected -> concurrent modification from other thread
>>                      if (ti >= size) {
>>                          throw new ConcurrentModificationException();
>>                      }
>>                      a[ti++] = (T) tab[si]; // copy value
>>                  }
>>              }
>>
>> Looks like si is incrementing by 3 rather than 2 (which ironically will cause a CME later because there will be fewer elements copied than expected).
>>
>> Do you concur? If so then we can create a bug to change this to test tab[si] and copy in tab[si+1].
>>
>> -Alan