Unsafe for array access

[David Chase]

Don't we now have an Unsigned class providing these operations? (which could be intrinsified)
Or did we want to tie the intrinsic more closely to array classes?

David

On 2014-05-07, at 11:56 AM, John Rose <john.r.rose at oracle.com> wrote:

>> On May 7, 2014, at 4:30 AM, Doug Lea <dl at cs.oswego.edu> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Relatedly, it might be be nice to have an intrinsic boundsCheck(array, index)
>> that could be used in such cases that implemented using the more efficient
>> (using C): (unsigned)index >= (unsigned)array.length, plus relied on more
>> efficient VM throw mechanics on failure.
> 
> We need an intrinsic like this for Arrays 2.0. Might as well do it now, since we have an immediate application. 
> 
> Counterpoint:  optimizer can and should generate similar code for plain user written range tests. 
> 
> Advice:  Do both, and the intrinsic will give everybody a clearer target to aim for. Unit test the intrinsic optimization, and several similar formulations. 
> 
> – John

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/attachments/20140507/679d687e/signature.asc>