8252827: Caching Integer.toString just like Integer.valueOf

[Laurent Bourgès]

Hi,

I read the JBS bug and I interpret it as:
- IntegerCache provides Integer instances for [-128, 127] by default
- Having Integer.toString(int) could behave the same or at least cache most
probable values like [-1 to 16] or using the IntegerCache range.

It looks trivial and potentially could benefits to jdk itself to reduce
memory garbage : is Integer.toString(int) widely used in the jdk codebase ?

Finally it can be alternatively implemented in application's code.

My 2 cents,
Laurent

Le sam. 17 avr. 2021 à 11:06, Raffaello Giulietti <
raffaello.giulietti at gmail.com> a écrit :

>
>
> On 2021-04-17 07:07, David Holmes wrote:
> > On 17/04/2021 4:54 am, Raffaello Giulietti wrote:
> >> I guess the reporter meant to limit the cache range similarly to the
> >> one used for valueOf().
> >>
> >> I have no clue about the benefit/cost ratio for the proposed String
> >> cache. It really depends on usage, workload, etc. One can easily
> >> imagine both extreme scenarios but it's hard to tell how the average
> >> one would look.
> >>
> >> My post is only about either solving the issue by implementing the
> >> cache, which I can contribute to; or closing it because of lack of
> >> real-world need or interest.
> >
> > Caching for the sake of caching is not an objective in itself. Unless
> > the caching can be shown to solve a real problem, and the strategy for
> > managing the cache is well-defined, then I would just close the
> > enhancement request. (Historically whether an issue we don't have any
> > firm plans to address is just left open "forever" or closed, depends
> > very much on who does the bug triaging in that area. :) )
> >
> > Cheers,
> > David
> >
>
>
> Indeed, the impression is that many of the issues are probably open
> because it's unclear whether they should be addressed with some
> implementation or spec effort or whether they should be closed. Triaging
> is certainly a harder job than it appears at first sight ;-)
>
> It would be useful to have a kind of "suspended" or "limbo" resolution
> state on the JBS for issues like this one, so people searching for more
> compelling open ones would not encounter them.
>
> Personally, I would close this issue without a "fix"; or "suspend" it.
>
>
> Greetings
> Raffaello
>
>
>
> >>
> >> Greetings
> >> Raffaello
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2021-04-16 20:36, Roger Riggs wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Is there any way to quantify the savings?
> >>> And what technique can be applied to limit the size of the cache.
> >>> The size of the small integer cache is somewhat arbitrary.
> >>>
> >>> Regards, Roger
> >>>
> >>> On 4/16/21 12:48 PM, Raffaello Giulietti wrote:
> >>>> Hello,
> >>>>
> >>>> does the enhancement proposed in [1] make sense, both today and when
> >>>> wrappers will be migrated to primitive classes?
> >>>> If so, it should be rather simple to add it and I could prepare a PR.
> >>>> If not, the issue might perhaps be closed.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Greetings
> >>>> Raffaello
> >>>>
> >>>> ----
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8252827
> >>>
>