... feel free to postpone to next release if you feel like it could use some more work (e.g. a different max)

@kares It seems reasonable to me but I wonder how often this happens to warrant the extra code. I guess JVM does it so they thought it was worth it.

Second nit is you are still not putting your closing } onto same line :)

yep, sorry about the style changes (although in this case I might have done it on purpose - the if () gets lost in dense lines bellow and above but I shall respect your style taste :).

since an update some time back my IDEA has never been the same - was glad to get the jruby project working again I need to spent some time setting it up as I need to manually undo changes it does for me.

will do a micro bench test whether its worth the change (should be since its expected to jump directly skiping the lookup part) -> will post back with numbers.
... such casing should be not that uncommon e.g. for def my(*args); methods

Super-interesting deep-dive into a detail.

(Hi @kares, could you choose another name than p for a local variable in the Ruby tests?

My eyes – and some code highlighters – read that as Kernel#p.)

thanks @olleolleolle ... sorry not into style updates really at this point (this code might get rejected).

have done some micro benchmarks previously (as @enebo suggested) and the change seemed only make a little difference, so I am not sure if tableswitch makes sense over lookupswitch if it 'complicates' code. but than maybe I have done it wrong - someone better understanding the difference in terms of JVM (and native code jitting) should decide whether this makes sense or not really ...

This looks fine. Merging so it can bake for 9.1.9.0.