<i18n dev> RFR: 8319423: Improve Year.isLeap by checking divisibility by 16

[Roger Riggs]

On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 12:03:24 GMT, Claes Redestad <redestad at openjdk.org> wrote:

> https://github.com/cassioneri/eaf suggest this code for leap year calculation:
> 
>     public static boolean isLeap(long year) {
>         int d = year % 100 != 0 ? 4 : 16;
>         return (year & (d - 1)) == 0;
>     }
> 
> .. with a claim this would compile down to branchless, easily pipelined code.
> 
> This doesn't currently happen with C2. In the meantime I think we can improve the current code in `Year.isLeap` and `IsoChronology.isLeapYear` by leveraging the fact that the `% 100` check is only needed if `(year & 15) != 0`:
> 
> 
>     public static boolean isLeap(long year) {
>         return (year & 15) == 0 ? (year & 3) == 0 : (year & 3) == 0 && year % 100 != 0;
>     }
> 
> 
> Mac M1:
> 
> Name                           Cnt  Base   Error   Test   Error   Unit  Change
> LeapYearBench.isLeapYear        15 0,743 ± 0,009  0,994 ± 0,005 ops/us   1,34x (p = 0,000*)
> LeapYearBench.isLeapYearChrono  15 0,748 ± 0,006  0,991 ± 0,003 ops/us   1,32x (p = 0,000*)
> LeapYearBench.isLeapYearNS      15 0,558 ± 0,026  0,552 ± 0,033 ops/us   0,99x (p = 0,602 )
>   * = significant
> 
> 
> Linux x64:
> 
> Name                           Cnt  Base   Error   Test   Error   Unit  Change
> LeapYearBench.isLeapYear        15 0.534 ± 0.001  0.765 ± 0.004 ops/us   1.43x (p = 0.000*)
> LeapYearBench.isLeapYearChrono  15 0.535 ± 0.000  0.753 ± 0.040 ops/us   1.41x (p = 0.000*)
> LeapYearBench.isLeapYearNS      15 0.352 ± 0.000  0.351 ± 0.001 ops/us   1.00x (p = 0.000*)
>   * = significant
> 
> 
> 30% higher throughput on M1, 40% on x64. `isLeapYearNS` runs a variant of the code from https://github.com/cassioneri/eaf ported to java - perhaps the JIT can be improved to do whatever clang/gcc does here and achieve an even better speed-up.
> 
> Testing: so far only java/time/tck/java/time locally, will run a few tiers before filing an enhancement and opening the PR for review.

Looks good. It probably needs a comment explaining why or a reference; otherwise it looks mysterious.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16491#issuecomment-1792984156