boxing + unboxing a VT is not a no-op ?

[forax at univ-mlv.fr]

----- Mail original -----
> De: "Tobias Hartmann" <tobias.hartmann at oracle.com>
> À: "Remi Forax" <forax at univ-mlv.fr>
> Cc: "valhalla-dev" <valhalla-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> Envoyé: Mardi 17 Juillet 2018 14:31:08
> Objet: Re: boxing + unboxing a VT is not a no-op ?

> Hi Remi,
> 
> I had a look at the C2 generated code for
> valuelist_intbox_innervalue_inlined_reduce and it is
> essentially the same highly optimized code that is generated for
> valuelist_intbox_inlined_reduce.
> 
> I'm not able to measure a performance difference either. Were you able to
> reproduce this with the
> latest version of the repo? Maybe some of our recent patches fixed this problem
> as well.

when i run the benchmark,

Benchmark                                                        Mode  Cnt    Score    Error  Units
ReifiedListBenchMark.arraylist_integer_get                       avgt    9    0.055 ±  0.001  ms/op
ReifiedListBenchMark.reifiedlist_intbox_get                      avgt    9  506.190 ±  7.978  ms/op
ReifiedListBenchMark.valuelist_intbox_get                        avgt    9    0.027 ±  0.001  ms/op
ReifiedListBenchMark.valuelist_intbox_inlined_reduce             avgt    9    0.027 ±  0.001  ms/op
ReifiedListBenchMark.valuelist_intbox_innervalue_inlined_reduce  avgt    9    0.304 ±  0.004  ms/op

if you compare valuelist_intbox_get and valuelist_intbox_inlined_reduce you see that a value type that contains an int as as fast as an int, that's great but i'm more interested by the last two benchmarks.

valuelist_intbox_innervalue_inlined_reduce should be as fast as valuelist_intbox_inlined_reduce, because the only difference is value type to object boxing.

> 
> Thanks,
> Tobias

Rémi