Skip to content

Conversation

@lutkerd
Copy link
Contributor

@lutkerd lutkerd commented Sep 30, 2022

Backporting trivial performance fix


Progress

  • Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
  • Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

  • JDK-8276904: Optional.toString() is unnecessarily expensive

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk17u-dev pull/763/head:pull/763
$ git checkout pull/763

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/763
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk17u-dev pull/763/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 763

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 763

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk17u-dev/pull/763.diff

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

bridgekeeper bot commented Sep 30, 2022

👋 Welcome back lutkerd! 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 changed the title Backport fe2ae8e38bd8660cc637f13f425ccea17a11aa4f 8276904: Optional.toString() is unnecessarily expensive Sep 30, 2022
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Sep 30, 2022

This backport pull request has now been updated with issue from the original commit.

@openjdk openjdk bot added backport Port of a pull request already in a different code base clean Identical backport; no merge resolution required labels Sep 30, 2022
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Sep 30, 2022

@lutkerd 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:

8276904: Optional.toString() is unnecessarily expensive

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 23 new commits pushed to the master branch:

  • ca8e16d: 8284732: FFI_GO_CLOSURES macro not defined but required for zero build on Mac OS X
  • 0657a3a: 8280511: AArch64: Combine shift and negate to a single instruction
  • 2d4fec4: 8292866: Java_sun_awt_shell_Win32ShellFolder2_getLinkLocation check MultiByteToWideChar return value for failures
  • 13ecd42: 8282642: vmTestbase/gc/gctests/LoadUnloadGC2/LoadUnloadGC2.java fails intermittently with exit code 1
  • 3d93fdc: 8294357: (tz) Update Timezone Data to 2022d
  • 29fea3f: 8291599: Assertion in PhaseIdealLoop::skeleton_predicate_has_opaque after JDK-8289127
  • 673b505: 8293816: CI: ciBytecodeStream::get_klass() is not consistent
  • 6882bd3: 8293044: C1: Missing access check on non-accessible class
  • 7f4fa23: 8292385: assert(ctrl == kit.control()) failed: Control flow was added although the intrinsic bailed out
  • cfc8771: 8290529: C2: assert(BoolTest(btest).is_canonical()) failure
  • ... and 13 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk17u-dev/compare/beb2ca22c90388120bff77a8a46f6d7b065da7f2...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.

As you do not have Committer status in this project an existing Committer must agree to sponsor your change.

➡️ To flag this PR as ready for integration with the above commit message, type /integrate in a new comment. (Afterwards, your sponsor types /sponsor in a new comment to perform the integration).

@openjdk openjdk bot added ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Sep 30, 2022
@mlbridge
Copy link

mlbridge bot commented Sep 30, 2022

Webrevs

@lutkerd
Copy link
Contributor Author

lutkerd commented Oct 6, 2022

/integrate

@openjdk openjdk bot added the sponsor Pull request is ready to be sponsored label Oct 6, 2022
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Oct 6, 2022

@lutkerd
Your change (at version 2ab888c) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

@phohensee
Copy link
Member

/sponsor

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Oct 6, 2022

Going to push as commit ce949ba.
Since your change was applied there have been 23 commits pushed to the master branch:

  • ca8e16d: 8284732: FFI_GO_CLOSURES macro not defined but required for zero build on Mac OS X
  • 0657a3a: 8280511: AArch64: Combine shift and negate to a single instruction
  • 2d4fec4: 8292866: Java_sun_awt_shell_Win32ShellFolder2_getLinkLocation check MultiByteToWideChar return value for failures
  • 13ecd42: 8282642: vmTestbase/gc/gctests/LoadUnloadGC2/LoadUnloadGC2.java fails intermittently with exit code 1
  • 3d93fdc: 8294357: (tz) Update Timezone Data to 2022d
  • 29fea3f: 8291599: Assertion in PhaseIdealLoop::skeleton_predicate_has_opaque after JDK-8289127
  • 673b505: 8293816: CI: ciBytecodeStream::get_klass() is not consistent
  • 6882bd3: 8293044: C1: Missing access check on non-accessible class
  • 7f4fa23: 8292385: assert(ctrl == kit.control()) failed: Control flow was added although the intrinsic bailed out
  • cfc8771: 8290529: C2: assert(BoolTest(btest).is_canonical()) failure
  • ... and 13 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk17u-dev/compare/beb2ca22c90388120bff77a8a46f6d7b065da7f2...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Oct 6, 2022
@openjdk openjdk bot closed this Oct 6, 2022
@openjdk openjdk bot removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review sponsor Pull request is ready to be sponsored labels Oct 6, 2022
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Oct 6, 2022

@phohensee @lutkerd Pushed as commit ce949ba.

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

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

backport Port of a pull request already in a different code base clean Identical backport; no merge resolution required integrated Pull request has been integrated

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants