Unsafe.{get,put}-X-Unaligned performance

[Vitaly Davidovich]

private static final ByteOrder byteOrder 571         =
unsafe.isBigEndian() ? ByteOrder.BIG_ENDIAN : ByteOrder.LITTLE_ENDIAN;
 572
 573     static ByteOrder byteOrder() {
 574         if (byteOrder == null)
 575             throw new Error("Unknown byte order");
 576         return byteOrder;
 577     }
 578

No need for null check in byteOrder() anymore, right?


On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 03/11/2015 07:10 AM, John Rose wrote:
> >>
> >> John: I'm waiting for an answer to my question here before I submit
> >> a webrev for approval.
> >>
> >>
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/panama-dev/2015-March/000099.html
> >
> > (Answered.)
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aph/unaligned.jdk.5/
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aph/unaligned.hotspot.5/
>
> I hope everybody is happy with this, or at least not so unhappy that
> they would want to reject it altogether.
>
> There is no bug ID for this yet.  John, would you like to create a bug
> database entry?  If not, I'll do so.  Then I can go for a RFR, which
> hopefully should be a shoo-in now that we've beaten this thing to
> death.  :-)
>
> Andrew.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/attachments/20150311/6ebcdf55/attachment.html>