On 2013-11-26, at 8:12 AM, David Chase <david.r.ch...@oracle.com> wrote: > On 2013-11-26, at 7:32 AM, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com> wrote: >> On 26/11/2013 10:16 PM, David Chase wrote: >>> >>> On 2013-11-26, at 7:12 AM, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com> wrote: >>>> On 26/11/2013 9:56 PM, David Chase wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 2013-11-25, at 9:18 PM, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com> wrote: >>>>>> We do have the jdk.internal namespace. But I think Unsafe is as good a >>>>>> place as any - though maybe sun.misc.VM is marginally better? >>>>> >>>>> Does anyone have any problems with sun.misc.VM as a choice? >>>>> I have to do a minor revision to the hotspot commit anyway. >>>>> Is sun.misc.VM also loaded very early anyway? >>>> >>>> No you would have to add it as for Unsafe. >>> >>> But it's loaded early anyway as a normal consequence of other class >>> loading, right? >> >> What do you mean by "early"? It isn't a pre-loaded class but it will be >> loaded during system initialization. It is approx the 120th class to be >> loaded. Unsafe is about 135th. > > 120 is earlier than 135, so by that measure it is superior. > Do you see any other problems with the change? > The method's not at all "Unsafe" in the technical sense of the word, so it is > just a matter of choosing a good home.
On further investigation, change to sun.misc.VM would be the first time that hotspot knows of the existence of sun.misc.VM; sun.misc.Unsafe is already filled with methods that the runtime knows about (intrinsics, etc). I think Unsafe is better. David
