On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 17:15:29 GMT, Alan Bateman <al...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> I thought about that but not sure of performance impact. Is the worst >> problem that more than one warnings will be printed for a single caller? >> It's not really harmless. >> >> As for the frame, if the warning message only contain the caller class name >> and its code source, why is it worth using a key of multiple frames? The >> message will look the same. > >> I thought about that but not sure of performance impact. Is the worst >> problem that more than one warnings will be printed for a single caller? >> It's not really harmless. >> >> As for the frame, if the warning message only contain the caller class name >> and its code source, why is it worth using a key of multiple frames? The >> message will look the same. > > WeakHashMap access needs synchronization. Whether we need to cache to avoid > excessive warnings isn't clear. If the SM is enabled once and never > disabled/re-enabled then caching isn't interesting. On the other hand if > there are programs that are enabling/disabling to execute subsets of code > then maybe it is. Maybe we should just drop this and see if there is any > feedback on the repeated warning? Not sure what you meant by "WeakHashMap access synchronization", it's just a noun without any other parts. Do you think synchronization is necessary? For the cache, I'm OK to drop it at the moment. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/4400
