Re: Bug(s) in java.lang.String

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi,

On Wed, 2002-07-31 at 23:14, Artur Biesiadowski wrote:
> Mark Wielaard wrote:
> 
>  > Another solution would be to encode the values in CharData not as
>  > Strings but as actual char[] but that might be a lot less efficient
>  > (source code may explode I mean, it shouldn't matter for the class
>  > file).
> 
> Just the opposite IMHO. Source would be not longer, at least not much, 
> class file on other hand would be a lot, lot larger. Instead of using 
> utf8 for 16bits (2-3 bytes per entry), in bytecode it would equal to
> 
> aload_n
> sipush index
> sipush value
> castore
> 
> which is 8 bytes. If we would use integers, it is more or less the same 
> - instead of sipush value, ldc constant_index would be used, plus extra 
> space in class file constants pool.

You are right. The class file format does not seem to have a way to
efficiently store arrays of primitive type. Which means that you have to
explicitly initialize those :{ Sigh.

I am still interested in how/why those Strings had a non-zero offset in
the first place. Maybe a compiler/VM may do such a thing and then we
have to take that into account in Character and String when we use them.

Cheers,

Mark