decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Google is muffing the performance argument | 189 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I disagree
Authored by: bugstomper on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 07:29 PM EDT
This was in the context of a rule 50(b) motion, which is about what a reasonable
jury could decide based on the evidence that was before it. Google could only
argue based on what witnesses actually said and did not say. They had Bloch's
testimony that rangeCheck did not increase performance of the running system.
They had Oracle's lack of testimony to contradict that. They had no evidence
that was before the jury that said that 2600 bounds checking calls that did not
signal an error would be any slower than skipping the calls, nor any other
testimony to indicate that Android was better off without rangeCheck. They did
include as close to that as they could from what was in evidence - That
Android's introduction and later success both happened without rangeCheck being
in the code.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

This is an error
Authored by: argee on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 08:32 PM EDT
Range Check is not called 2600 times at boot. It cannot be
called at all because it is not an API function. It cannot
be used outside of Timsort. If Timsort is called, it might
use RangeCheck a number of times.

---
--
argee

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Google is muffing the performance argument
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 12:06 PM EDT
Agreed there are debates about if, and to what extent,
library methods should protect themselves.
It's also not uncommon to have multiple versions of the
library, often along the lines of "debug" and "production"
where the debug version does all kinds of self-protection
(and programmer protection) but suffers performance
penalties, and production code that does minimal, if any
protective tests in order to maximize performance.
Testing that the upper bound is more than the lower bound is
one of the programmer protections, while testing that a
particular index is within the upper and lower bounds
inclusive would be a reasonable production test.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )