RFR: 8172169: Re-examine String field optionality

[Claes Redestad]

On 01/03/2017 11:15 AM, Tobias Hartmann wrote:
> 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.

Great, thanks!

/Claes

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