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

[Xueming Shen]

You's right. The native implementation in vm is only for those 
"constants", and that's not "intrinsic".

On 9/17/14 9:20 AM, Vitaly Davidovich wrote:
>
> There's no such intrinsic; there's intrinsic support for calling 
> native object hashcode, but string isn't special cased.
>
> Sent from my phone
>
> On Sep 17, 2014 12:14 PM, "Xueming Shen" <xueming.shen at oracle.com 
> <mailto:xueming.shen at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     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>
>             <mailto: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/>
>                  <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eshade/8058643/webrev.01/>
>             https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8058643
>
>                  Thanks,
>                  -Aleksey.
>
>
>
>