On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 08:34:56 GMT, Erik Österlund <eosterl...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> I noticed that in my preliminary review of Erik's changes. He checked
>> with the JFR guys and they said it just needed to be an address and
>> does not have to refer to the Object.
>>
>> @fisk - can you think of a comment we should add here?
>
> We could write something along the lines of "An address that is 'unique
> enough', such that events close in time and with the same address are likely
> (but not guaranteed) to belong to the same object". This uniqueness property
> has always been more of a heuristic thing than anything else, as deflation
> shuffles the addresses around. Taking the this pointer vs an offset into the
> this pointer does however serve the exact same purpose; there was never any
> correlation to the contents of the object field.
Thanks @fisk! I've added a slightly edited version of the comment:
// Set an address that is 'unique enough', such that events close in
// time and with the same address are likely (but not guaranteed) to
// belong to the same object.
@dholmes-ora - does this work for you?
>> I noticed that in my preliminary review of Erik's changes. He checked
>> with the JFR guys and they said it just needed to be an address and
>> does not have to refer to the Object.
>>
>> @fisk - can you think of a comment we should add here?
>
> I wrote one in the section above, hope it is useful.
Thanks @fisk. I copied the same comment here since it is about
1000 lines away from the other comment.
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/642
