Does anyone have any thoughts or suggestions on this please?
Ralph
> On Apr 2, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> Log4j 2 supports the notion of a PreciseClock - one that can be initialized
> to something more precise than a millisecond. At the same time it also
> supports running with no heap allocations in certain circumstances. I am in
> the process of moving our master branch to require Java 11 as the minimum. In
> doing so I am encountering unit test errors while verifying that logging is
> garbage free. They all occur allocating an Instant.
>
> The code we have simply does
>
> public void init(MutableInstant mutableInstant) {
> Instant instant = java.time.Clock.systemUTC().instant();
> mutableInstant.initFromEpochSecond(instant.getEpochSecond(),
> instant.getNano());
> }
> In our previous tests we had thought the allocation was being eliminated due
> to escape analysis since the data is being extracted from the Instant and not
> passed along. However, after upgrading the Google test library and the JDK
> version it appears that is not the case.
> Ideally we would really like something like
>
> public void init(MutableInstant mutableInstant) {
> java.time.Clock.systemUTC().initInstant(mutableInstant);
> }
>
> where Mutable instant would implement an interface that has the two set
> methods.The method would execute the same logic that is in the instant()
> method but instead of creating a new Instant it would call the set methods
> for the provided object.
>
> This would allow us to either have the MutableInstants in ThreadLocals or
> some other mechanism to ensure they are thread safe and have no heap
> allocations. As it stands now I see no way to gain access to the higher
> precision clock without memory allocation.
>
> Do you know of another way to do this? Am I missing something?
>
> Ralph
