Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

8310241: OffsetDateTime compareTo redundant computation #14618

Closed

Conversation

RogerRiggs
Copy link
Contributor

@RogerRiggs RogerRiggs commented Jun 22, 2023

Remove a redundant comparison in java.time OffsetDateTime.compareTo().
If the compareInstant utility method returns 0 (equal), it compares the LocalDateTime.
However, compareInstant has already done that comparison; if it found equal, the compareTo method unnecessarily does it again.
The code is refactored in compareTo to do the comparison of LocalDateTime exactly once, if it is needed.

This case is NOT covered by an existing test in test/jdk/java/time/tck/java/time/TCKOffsetDateTime.java


Progress

  • Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
  • Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
  • Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

  • JDK-8310241: OffsetDateTime compareTo redundant computation (Bug - P4)

Reviewers

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/14618/head:pull/14618
$ git checkout pull/14618

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/14618
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/14618/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 14618

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 14618

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14618.diff

Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

Covered by existing tests in test/jdk/java/time/tck/java/time/TCKOffsetDateTime.java
@bridgekeeper
Copy link

bridgekeeper bot commented Jun 22, 2023

👋 Welcome back rriggs! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Jun 22, 2023
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jun 22, 2023

@RogerRiggs The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

  • core-libs

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the core-libs core-libs-dev@openjdk.org label Jun 22, 2023
@mlbridge
Copy link

mlbridge bot commented Jun 22, 2023

Webrevs

Comment on lines 170 to 173
* When two values represent the same instant, the local date-time is compared
* to distinguish them. This step is needed to make the ordering
* consistent with {@code equals()}.
*
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This method is also called from the public timeLineOrder() method. Could this change cause a different order?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Your are right; I missed that subtlety. With that in mind I don't think the performance impact is sufficient to duplicate more code.

@RogerRiggs
Copy link
Contributor Author

Closing because this 'fix' a bigger issue than it fixes.

@RogerRiggs RogerRiggs closed this Jun 26, 2023
Add a test for the specific condition being optimized, the test was missing in the original.
@RogerRiggs
Copy link
Contributor Author

Reopening this to propose a different implementation and to
provide the test of the specific condition that is missing from java/time/jck/java/time/TCKOffsetDateTime.java

@RogerRiggs RogerRiggs reopened this Jun 28, 2023
Copy link
Member

@naotoj naotoj left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jun 28, 2023

@RogerRiggs This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8310241: OffsetDateTime compareTo redundant computation

Reviewed-by: naoto

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 83 new commits pushed to the master branch:

  • f0c2f09: 8296972: [macos13] java/awt/Frame/MaximizedToIconified/MaximizedToIconified.java: getExtendedState() != 6 as expected.
  • 9f46fc2: 8310906: Fix -Wconversion warnings in runtime, oops and some code header files.
  • 7fffdb5: 8310405: Linker.Option.firstVariadicArg should specify which index values are valid
  • b6c789f: 8309140: ResourceHashtable failed "assert(~(_allocation_t[0] | allocation_mask) == (uintptr_t)this) failed: lost resource object"
  • 9f98136: 6956385: URLConnection.getLastModified() leaks file handles for jar:file and file: URLs
  • 46e4ee1: 8310974: NMT: Arena diffs miss the scale
  • f17bfee: 8311034: Fix typo in javac man page
  • 2ccdd29: 8299825: Move StdoutLog and StderrLog to LogConfiguration
  • e3f18af: 8311007: jdk/jfr/tool/TestView.java can't find event
  • 08c51f2: 8310920: Fix -Wconversion warnings in command line flags
  • ... and 73 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/130a9f138759c2f8504a83a6f3a93b1f219f0a42...master

As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Jun 28, 2023
@RogerRiggs
Copy link
Contributor Author

/integrate

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jun 29, 2023

Going to push as commit 11fd34e.
Since your change was applied there have been 106 commits pushed to the master branch:

  • d979662: 8311115: Type in java.lang.reflect.AccessFlag.METHOD_PARAMETER
  • a995aa6: 8310232: java.time.Clock$TickClock.millis() fails in runtime when tick is 1 microsecond
  • 26efff7: 8309902: C2: assert(false) failed: Bad graph detected in build_loop_late after JDK-8305189
  • 05c2b6c: 8309979: BootstrapMethods attribute is missing in class files recreated by SA
  • 20f7d05: 8310502: Optimization for j.l.Long.fastUUID()
  • 07734f6: 8310848: Convert ClassDesc and MethodTypeDesc to be stored in static final fields
  • e5744b8: 8310919: runtime/ErrorHandling/TestAbortVmOnException.java times out due to core dumps taking a long time on OSX
  • 98a954e: 8308286: Fix clang warnings in linux code
  • f842ec4: 8305667: Some fonts installed in user directory are not detected on Windows
  • 690d626: 8307927: C2: "malformed control flow" with irreducible loop
  • ... and 96 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/130a9f138759c2f8504a83a6f3a93b1f219f0a42...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Jun 29, 2023
@openjdk openjdk bot closed this Jun 29, 2023
@openjdk openjdk bot removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Jun 29, 2023
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jun 29, 2023

@RogerRiggs Pushed as commit 11fd34e.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.

@RogerRiggs RogerRiggs deleted the 8310241-offsetdatetime-compareto branch December 11, 2023 17:24
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
core-libs core-libs-dev@openjdk.org integrated Pull request has been integrated
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants