On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 18:22:55 GMT, Weijun Wang <wei...@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. >> >> 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. I think it would be simpler to start out without the caller cache. Sorry the sentence got garbled, I was trying to repeat what I said above that WeakHashMap is not synchronized so you would need to add synchronization to use it. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/4400
