RFR: 8209120: Archive the Integer.IntegerCache (original) (raw)

mandy chung mandy.chung at oracle.com
Fri Aug 10 15:01:29 UTC 2018

On 8/10/18 6:32 AM, Claes Redestad wrote:

On 2018-08-09 18:28, Claes Redestad wrote:

On 2018-08-09 17:41, Peter Levart wrote: There's danger when you overwrite a non-null @Stable field with another value that this new value will not be seen. Or is code an exception where @Stable is not honored yet... Typically IntegerCache:: runs before JIT has even started, so I think we're OK even though the double-assignment is undefined. But it's a good question what happens in cases we're running AOTd code, so perhaps this pattern might be problematic in some future.. To mitigate this possibility, you could have two fields: static Integer cache[]; static final Integer finalCache[]; The 'cache' field is archived and de-archived. The final result is set to 'cache' by overwriting and to 'finalCache'. The later is then also used in Integer.valueOf(). Right, this would be a cheap way to dispel any concerns here. New webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/8209120/open.01/

This looks good to me. Similar pattern may also be applied to empty ListN, SetN, MapN added by JDK-8207263.

Mandy

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list