> Given your examples can we assume that the JVM will never need to do an > implicit `Qjava/lang/Integer$val;` to `I` conversion? And these will always > be explicit conversions performed by javac? >
Correct. > > - The type [I is considered by the verifier to be equivalent to > > [java/lang/Integer$val. Array operations (aaload, iaload, etc.) support > > this. > > Could you please explain the motivation behind this? Specifically, in which > cases are iaload and aaload operations both performed on `[I` ? > > If `I` and `Qjava/lang/Integer$val;` will require explicit javac conversions, > shouldn't `[I` and `[java/lang/Integer$val` also? > Because arrays have identity (not to mention potentially large copying costs), there is simply no reasonable conversion we can define; any “conversion” would involve copying all the data, changing identity, or both. Just as with the array subtyping requirements (Point[] <: Point.ref[] <: Object[]), these are things only the VM can do for us.
