RFR JDK-8022442: Fix unchecked warnings in HashMap
daniel.smith at oracle.com
Tue Aug 6 22:23:14 UTC 2013
On Aug 6, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Remi Forax <forax at univ-mlv.fr> wrote:
> On 08/06/2013 11:11 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
>> Please review this warnings cleanup.
>> Bug: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=8022442 (not yet visible)
>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dlsmith/8022442/webrev.00/
> Hi Dan,
> I've seen that you have introduce a common super interface for entry and tree node,
> I suppose that you check that there is no performance regression.
> I wonder if an abstract class is not better than an interface because as far as I know
> CHA implemented in hotspot doesn't work on interface
> (but I may be wrong, there is perhaps a special optimization for arrays).
To make sure I understand: your concern is that an aastore will be more expensive when assigning to a KeyValueData than to an Object (or even to SomeOtherClass)?
For what it's worth, all assignments to table[i] are statically known to be safe. E.g.:
Entry<K,V> next = (Entry<K,V>) e.next;
table[i] = next;
So surely a smart VM only does the check once?
Here are some other things that might be concerns, but don't apply here:
- interface method invocations: there are no methods in the interface to invoke
- checkcast to an interface: all the casts are to concrete classes (Entry, TreeBin, TreeNode)
(There are some unchecked casts from KeyValueData to KeyValueData with different type parameters, but I assume these don't cause any checkcasts.)
More information about the core-libs-dev