[OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFC: 7019861 + workaround + minor optimization
dlila at redhat.com
Thu Mar 10 11:06:51 PST 2011
> Yes, that was the point of my original question. I was asking how you
> felt about the dead code, apologies that it took so long to get on the
> same page. I don't have a strong opinion there, I was just making you
> aware that there was more dead code. Another option would be to move
> just the switch statement into a secondary shared function which might
> be small enough not to trigger that compiler bug.
> But, I'll leave those decisions up to you. I was just pointing out
> you missed some potentially dead code...
Oh, I see. Well, I wasn't aware of it before you asked, so thanks
for pointing it out. I guess I'll remove it.
As for moving the switch in its own function, I think the compiler
would just inline it and then we'd be in the same spot.
Shall I push?
----- Original Message -----
> Hi Denis,
> On 3/10/2011 6:38 AM, Denis Lila wrote:
> >> [Resending due to bounces...]
> >> On 3/9/2011 5:56 AM, Denis Lila wrote:
> >>>> lines 1002& 1083 - can breaking points of a cubic generate quad
> >>>> segments and vice versa?
> >>> No, the functions that generate the offset curves can only
> >>> return a line or a curve of the same degree as the curve
> >>> whose offset they're generating.
> >> Then why does the code to handle the opposing curve type exist in
> >> these
> >> functions?
> >> ...jim
> > Because everything was copied from somethingTo, which had to handle
> > both types of curves, and I applied constant propagation and dead
> > code elimination very mechanically for fear or breaking something.
> > Should I remove the cases that never execute?
> > Regards,
> > Denis.
More information about the 2d-dev