Hi Mandy,
The componentType field is the last one that I'm planning on moving out
for now, so I'd like to keep the code as is. If more are added because
of more performance opportunities, I think we can revisit this.
I agree with Doug that we don't want any more special code like this in
the JVM to disable these optimizations if they are ever implemented.
Thank you for reviewing the code.
Coleen
On 7/2/14, 2:26 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
On 6/30/2014 9:51 PM, Christian Thalinger wrote:
On Jun 30, 2014, at 5:50 PM, Coleen Phillimore
<coleen.phillim...@oracle.com> wrote:
On 6/30/14, 3:50 PM, Christian Thalinger wrote:
private Class(ClassLoader loader) {
// Initialize final field for classLoader. The
initialization value of non-null
// prevents future JIT optimizations from assuming this
final field is null.
classLoader = loader;
+ componentType = null;
}
Are we worried about the same optimization?
Hi, I've decided to make them consistent and add another parameter
to the Class constructor.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coleenp/8047737_jdk_2/
The jdk change looks okay while I am beginning to think whether we
really want to keep expanding this constructor to deal with this
future JIT optimization (you will be moving more fields out from the
VM to java.lang.Class).
There are places in JDK initializing the final fields to null while
the final field value is overridden via native/VM - e.g. System.in,
System.out, etc. I would prefer reverting the classLoader constructor
change to expanding the constructor for any new field being added.
Handle it (and other places in JDK) when such JIT optimization comes.
Mandy