On 27/11/2013 2:16 AM, David Chase wrote:
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.
Okay.
David
David
