On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 07:28:42 GMT, David Holmes <dhol...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>>> > So I am not sure if we really have that separation anymore. >>> >>> I think it is more that there are many bits of code that actually form the >>> "boundary" (prims, services, some runtime, jvmci, interpreter-related). But >>> I guess it is hard to argue this makes it markedly worse. >> >> Arguably the translation of Java mirrors to Klasses is also a boundary (from >> Java representation to VM representation) :-) >> >> In reality I think because jobjects are easy to use and are just another >> kind of handle (like Handle and OopHandle), the leakage from JNI code to >> other parts of VM just happened naturally. >> >>> > The code already assumes that it has an InstanceKlass, and I am not >>> > changing that. >>> >>> Okay. >> >> BTW I removed the JVMTI changes from this PR. > >> Arguably the translation of Java mirrors to Klasses is also a boundary (from >> Java representation to VM representation) :-) > > The mirror is an oop, both oop and klass are internal VM representations. Thanks @dholmes-ora @coleenp for the review ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27158#issuecomment-3294479460
