Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Use valueOf() to box primitive values instead of creating new objects every time #88
Use valueOf() to box primitive values instead of creating new objects every time #88
Changes from 4 commits
d97f4a7
f3c0b4e
64ae0f3
f6ea799
aa31470
9c0f459
dd60b8a
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
It's not clear to me that we should / want to drop and then re-acquire the GIL (even thought the previous code to this was). In the other cases of CallStaticObjectMethod (and NewObject, etc) we are usually calling arbitrary pieces of code - at least in the context of this patch, we are only calling short valueOf methods.
@niloc132 @jmao-denver may have perspective as well.
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.
Any Java allocation could theoretically lead to a lengthy GC so worth keeping that in mind
Is there any performance testing around jpy/any idea what the cost of dropping/reacquiring the GIL is?
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.
It's an interesting question - are allocation points also "safepoints"? I think "yes", but the real answer may be more nuanced than that.
That said, you are probably right and the way we do it now is probably the safest option.
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.
Extra
;
(also in other places) given the macro defines it as well.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.
I can change it, but I figured better this way because it's nice to "pretend it's a regular function" and because this is how other similar macros are used (e.g.
JPy_DELETE_LOCAL_REF
)