-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 925
Commit
- 9.4.12.0
- 9.4.11.0
- 9.4.10.0
- 9.4.9.0
- 9.4.8.0
- 9.4.7.0
- 9.4.6.0
- 9.4.5.0
- 9.4.4.0
- 9.4.3.0
- 9.4.2.0
- 9.4.1.0
- 9.4.0.0
- 9.3.15.0
- 9.3.14.0
- 9.3.13.0
- 9.3.12.0
- 9.3.11.0
- 9.3.10.0
- 9.3.9.0
- 9.3.8.0
- 9.3.7.0
- 9.3.6.0
- 9.3.5.0
- 9.3.4.0
- 9.3.3.0
- 9.3.2.0
- 9.3.1.0
- 9.3.0.0
- 9.2.21.0
- 9.2.20.1
- 9.2.20.0
- 9.2.19.0
- 9.2.18.0
- 9.2.17.0
- 9.2.16.0
- 9.2.15.0
- 9.2.14.0
- 9.2.13.0
- 9.2.12.0
- 9.2.11.1
- 9.2.11.0
- 9.2.10.0
- 9.2.9.0
- 9.2.8.0
- 9.2.7.0
- 9.2.6.0
- 9.2.5.0
- 9.2.4.1
- 9.2.4.0
- 9.2.3.0
- 9.2.2.0
- 9.2.1.0
- 9.2.0.0
- 9.1.17.0
- 9.1.16.0
- 9.1.15.0
- 9.1.14.0
- 9.1.13.0
- 9.1.12.0
- 9.1.11.0
- 9.1.10.0
- 9.1.9.0
- 9.1.8.0
- 9.1.7.0
- 9.1.6.0
- 9.1.5.0
- 9.1.4.0
- 9.1.3.0
- 9.1.2.0
- 9.1.1.0
- 9.1.0.0
There are no files selected for viewing
3 comments
on commit 1e2c561
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We probably could have a static boolean to check if we're on Java 8 and call invokeExact then, but I wonder how much it would interfere with optimization to add that branch. It should fold away in Hotspot.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Would multipleExact be faster at a cost? It raises an exception on overflow. So if you end up needing to promote you get the icky overhead with it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@enebo The ArithmeticException thrown does have exception + stack trace overhead, but only when you overflow. I'd have preferred a lightweight exception, but it may all inline together and eliminate the stack trace...I'm not sure.
Too bad it's Java 7 and we can't use multiplyExact.