RFR: 8320448: Accelerate IndexOf using AVX2 [v48]

[Scott Gibbons]

On Thu, 30 May 2024 13:56:30 GMT, Emanuel Peter <epeter at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Control question: Are we confident with this potentially going into JDK 23 or should we rather postpone to JDK 24? The fork is next week.
>
>> Control question: Are we confident with this potentially going into JDK 23 or should we rather postpone to JDK 24? The fork is next week.
> 
> I would hold off. @asgibbons it may pass our tests, and your extensive testing. But you never know what the fuzzer can find over a few weeks once it runs with your changes. I have made that experience many times. Let's just give it a few days, and then we have one JDK version less to worry about for backports on possible follow-up bugs ;)

@eme64 I'm glad to have received your feedback.  I see I have erroneously assumed that by making the exact code change you requested still requires your acceptance - I won't make that mistake again.  I had also erroneously assumed that your review was complete and you had no further changes for me to make.  I'd also not like to make that mistake again, but I'm unsure how to conclude that a review is complete - it seems like 7 hours of elapsed time isn't sufficient to indicate completion, so can you please help me figure this out? Perhaps it's just my distaste for "trickle-in" comments, which I should get over, or is there another way you can suggest?

As for the fuzzer I would be very interested in learning more about this.  We have a significant number of compute resources, so it may be valuable for us to set up a copy of the fuzzer on-site to improve the quality of our submissions.  Can you help in pointing me to someone that can advise me on how to do this?

As for holding off the integration, I'll leave the decision to a sponsor for this PR.  I don't believe increasing the reviewer count just to "force" reevaluation should be an acceptable practice, although I'm not an insider in this community.

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16753#issuecomment-2139814010