Impact of code difference in Collection#contains() worth improving?

Ulf Zibis Ulf.Zibis at
Mon Sep 8 21:34:35 UTC 2014

Much thanks for your comments John.

The in bug 6984886 mentioned isHigh/LowSurrogate methods are frequently used in small loops of 
charset de/encoders, so I expect a measurable performance improvement there.


Am 06.09.2014 um 01:25 schrieb John Rose:
> On Aug 30, 2014, at 7:17 AM, Ulf Zibis <Ulf.Zibis at> wrote:
>> Am 30.08.2014 um 01:33 schrieb John Rose:
>>> On Aug 29, 2014, at 1:05 PM, Ulf Zibis <Ulf.Zibis at <mailto:Ulf.Zibis at>> wrote:
>>>> Thanks for explaining this, but a very little nit: the immediate (I.e. -1) uses additional 32/64 bits in code which must be loaded from memory and wastes space in CPU cache or am I wrong? This could be saved with >= 0.
>>> I have to say you're more wrong than right about this.  Optimizers routinely change the form of constants.  For example, a constant 0 will often show up as something like "xor eax,eax", not a 32-bit literal zero that loads from somewhere in memory.  A comparison of the form "x > -1" will be freely changed to "x >= 0" and back again; the latter form may (or may not, depending on chip version) transform to "test eax", with no "-1" or "0" in sight.
>> 1. Thanks for the hint about "x > -1" ===> "x >= 0". But I'm afraid this would apply on the "x != -1" case we are discussing here.
> The equality comparison would be less likely to transform to a non-equality comparison.  But it is still possible in principle, if the JIT could prove that values "x < -1" are impossible.
>> 2. Are you really sure this optimization is always implemented, as following bug is still open:
>> JDK-6984886 : Transform comparisons against odd border to even border <>
> Well, I'm pretty sure that no optimizations is "always" implemented; there are usually corner cases which prevent optimizations.  There is always a possibility of deoptimization to the interpreter, for example.  And there are lots of nice-to-have optimizations that don't make a difference to real applications.  Much of compiler development is driven by observing actual speed bottlenecks and removing them.
> But the bug reference is useful; thanks!  I added a comment to show where the optimization occurs now—disappointingly little I grant you—and where to start looking to improve it.  The bug is rated P5 (lowest rating) probably because the reporter said "it should be faster"; "wouldn't this be nice" is a far weaker argument than "I'm spending too much on hardware because this loop is slow".
> My comments about the unpredictability of optimizers still stand.  The most robust way to manage such problems is, first confirm it is a real performance problem (not a micro-nano thing), and second get the optimizer to make all equivalent inputs produce good code.  The tiny place where this optimization is done in HotSpot suggests that that was a place where the transform actually mattered the most.
> — John

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list