On Jul 16, 2012, at 4:06 PM, Krystal Mok wrote:
> And you're right that this has to do with the PermGen removal project. The
> difference comes from [1], which is a part of CR 7017732.
> To be specific, before the 7017732, static fields are stored in the
> instanceKlass of a Java class; an instanceKlass (or its enclosing
> klassOopDesc to be exact) is not an Java object.
> After 7017732, static fields are moved to the tail of java.lang.Class
> instances, which are Java objects.
>
> So to answer your question, you just shouldn't expect the the code to work in
> JDK6/HotSpot.
The API for unsafe access to statics is designed to allow implementations to do
one of two things:
1. store a static variable at a fixed offset within a managed object
(addressable via Java references)
2. store a static variable at an arbitrary but fixed 64-bit VA (in which case
the object base is just null)
The JDK 6 system is in a middle state, where the instanceKlass is a managed
object and can move is not compatible with Java references. I think there was
a time when non-Java oops could be manipulated via Java reference variables,
but the practice has always been rather… unsafe.
This could be fixed in JDK 6, but it's probably not worth it. I recommend
spinning bytecoded accessors for statics on JDK 6. On JDK 7 and later, the
Class is the base (as Kris pointed out). This is probably how it's going to
stay.
Thanks for the report.
— John
P.S. For multi-tenancy VMs, the addressing arithmetic for statics would need to
take into account the task ID. But the above design (baseOrNull + longOffset)
still works, since the unsafe API doesn't say how the two components get
combined.
_______________________________________________
mlvm-dev mailing list
mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
