Final RFR: 8005232 (JEP-149) Class Instance size reduction (original) (raw)
Aleksey Shipilev aleksey.shipilev at oracle.com
Wed Jan 9 13:10:08 UTC 2013
- Previous message: Final RFR: 8005232 (JEP-149) Class Instance size reduction
- Next message: Final RFR: 8005232 (JEP-149) Class Instance size reduction
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Thanks for the explanations, Peter. Initialization loops are nasty.
On 01/09/2013 05:04 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
On 01/09/2013 01:19 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
c) What's the merit of using Unsafe instead of field updaters here? (Avoiding the dependency on j.u.c?) [snip] So if there are any objections to usage of Unsafe, it can be removed and replaced by simple volatile write.
Yes, I think that would be more clear without any adverse impacts on performance. Also, that better expresses the intent of requiring the visibility, not the atomicity of cache update.
-Aleksey.
- Previous message: Final RFR: 8005232 (JEP-149) Class Instance size reduction
- Next message: Final RFR: 8005232 (JEP-149) Class Instance size reduction
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]