RFR 8135248: Add utility methods to check indexes and ranges

Vitaly Davidovich vitalyd at gmail.com
Mon Sep 21 14:01:16 UTC 2015

So is this saying that enhancing Hotspot JIT to detect range check patterns
better is too much work? On the surface, it seems odd to need intrinsics, a
functional interface, and fixed template for getting efficient range checks.

Also, this may end up with similar profile pollution problems as things
like Objects.requireNonNull.

sent from my phone
On Sep 21, 2015 9:42 AM, "Paul Sandoz" <paul.sandoz at oracle.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> Please review the following which adds methods to Arrays to check indexes
> and ranges:
>   https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135248
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psandoz/jdk9/JDK-8135248-array-check-index-range/webrev/
> The original motivation was an intrinsic method, Arrays.checkIndex, to
> check if an index is within bounds. Such an intrinsic guides HotSpot
> towards better optimisations for bounds checks using one unsigned
> comparison instead of two signed comparisons, and better eliding of integer
> to long conversions when an index is used to create an offset for Unsafe
> access. The end result is more efficient array access especially so from
> within unrolled loops. The VarHandles work will use Arrays.checkIndex for
> array access.
> A follow up issue [1] will track the intrinsification of Arrays.checkIndex.
> We thought it would be opportunistic to support two further common
> use-cases for sub-range checks, Arrays.checkFromToIndex and Arrays.
> checkFromIndexSize. There is no current plan to intrinsify these methods.
> Bounds checking is not difficult but it can be easy to make trivial
> mistakes. Thus it is advantageous to consolidate such checks not just from
> an optimization perspective but from a correctness and security/integrity
> perspective.
> There are many areas in the JDK where such checks are performed. A follow
> up issue [2] will track updates to use the new methods.
> The main challenge for these new methods is to design in such a way that
> 1) existing use-cases can still report the same set of exceptions with the
> same messages;
> 2) method byte code size is not unduly increased, thus perturbing
> inlining; and
> 3) there is a reasonable path for any future support of long indexes.
> Paul.
> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8042997
> [2] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135250

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list