On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 17:07:00 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
> Just to be clear, the test should pass even if it keeps Lookup as the
> referent, right?
No. The test will not because there's no reference to the `Lookup` except in
`asInterfaceInstance` itself; the `Lookup`s thus are always eligible for
On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 15:13:49 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
> The WeakReference should point to the impl class. The Lookup is a cheap
> wrapper, so I changed it to be created each time instead.
I won't object to keep the impl class. Just to be clear, the test should pass
even if it keeps Lookup as
On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 13:40:27 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> @mlchung Thank you for the new round of review.
>> I have split the large test into 3 parts, testing general contracts, against
>> different types of interfaces, and implementation-related tests. The old
>> MethodHandleProxies test, which
On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 13:16:21 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
> 1. I think the type profile pollution only happens with the instance-field
> approach, as I recall different instance fields' MHs pollute profiling. The
> comment need to be corrected if I'm right.
What happens is not really 'profile pollut
On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 16:31:47 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
>> Chen Liang has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and previous
>> commits have been removed. The incremental views will show differences
>> compared to the previous content of the PR. The pull request contains one
>> new commit s
On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 17:15:38 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
>> Chen Liang has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and previous
>> commits have been removed. The incremental views will show differences
>> compared to the previous content of the PR. The pull request contains one
>> new commit s
On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 18:14:16 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
> If more than one target method handles are used, the extra classes will
> pollute the same type profiles.
Is this the case? I thought the profile pollution happens with the impl class
holding MH in instance field approach, while JIT handle
On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 06:45:46 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
>> As John Rose has pointed out in this issue, the current j.l.r.Proxy based
>> implementation of MethodHandleProxies.asInterface has a few issues:
>> 1. Exposes too much information via Proxy supertype (and WrapperInstance
>> interface)
>> 2.
On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 06:45:46 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
>> As John Rose has pointed out in this issue, the current j.l.r.Proxy based
>> implementation of MethodHandleProxies.asInterface has a few issues:
>> 1. Exposes too much information via Proxy supertype (and WrapperInstance
>> interface)
>> 2.
> As John Rose has pointed out in this issue, the current j.l.r.Proxy based
> implementation of MethodHandleProxies.asInterface has a few issues:
> 1. Exposes too much information via Proxy supertype (and WrapperInstance
> interface)
> 2. Does not allow future expansion to support SAM[^1] abstrac
10 matches
Mail list logo
