RFR (XS) CR 8058643: (str) Re-examine hashCode implementation

[Xueming Shen]

It definitely helps the "readability". String.hashCode() has intrinsics, 
so I don't think
we are seeing the real performance "difference" of the implementations. 
My guess
is the original one probably is faster.

On 9/17/14 8:25 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> Thanks Martin!
>
> It used to be "Clean-up String.hashCode()", and Alan had improved it
> since then. :) To Alan's defense, the bug report was shallow at that
> point to understand what is being proposed. I changed the title to
> "Improve...".
>
> Cheers,
> -Aleksey.
>
> On 09/17/2014 07:19 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>> Looks good, but I would use this title:
>>
>> (str) Improve String.hashCode implementation
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Aleksey Shipilev
>> <aleksey.shipilev at oracle.com <mailto:aleksey.shipilev at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>
>>      Hi,
>>
>>      Can I have a review and a sponsorship for this tiny readability cleanup
>>      in String.hashCode()?
>>       http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shade/8058643/webrev.01/
>>      <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eshade/8058643/webrev.01/>
>>       https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8058643
>>
>>      Thanks,
>>      -Aleksey.
>>
>>
>