RFR: 8172169: Re-examine String field optionality

[Tobias Hartmann]

Hi Claes,

On 03.01.2017 10:54, Claes Redestad wrote:
> Hi Tobias,
> 
> On 2017-01-03 10:38, Tobias Hartmann wrote:
>> Hi Claes,
>>
>> On 02.01.2017 17:54, Claes Redestad wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> hash_offset and coder_offset are set up to be optional, although there is
>>> code that doesn't honor this (which would be a bug if the fields actually
>>> *were* optional).  When the optionality is honored, there's a performance
>>> risk, especially on platforms with weak or no branch prediction.
>>>
>>> Since optional fields makes little sense in a world without hotspot express,
>>> I think these should simply be made non-optional.
>>>
>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/8172169/webrev.01
>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8172169
>>
>> This looks good to me! As Vladimir mentioned, we missed to remove this during Compact Strings development.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> I guess I will need a second opinion on the test results and selection,
> though: there are some new failures which all look like pre-existing or
> environment issues to me. See link in bug.

Yes, I agree that the new failures are unrelated to your change.

Best regards,
Tobias

> 
> /Claes
> 
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Tobias
>>
>>>
>>> Testing: JPRT pass.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> /Claes