[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openjdk-security-dev
Subject:    Re: RFR: JDK-8287061: Support for rematerializing scalar replaced objects participating in allocatio
From:       Vladimir Ivanov <vlivanov () openjdk ! org>
Date:       2023-04-27 23:50:56
Message-ID: LXuwj-aEpYq04Oyfa1Jt8D-slKC_xuQHapBO4xAeyv4=.d40c82a5-dda1-4370-9448-6c9da5075fe6 () github ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 23:35:02 GMT, Vladimir Ivanov <vlivanov@openjdk.org> wrote:

> > Hi @iwanowww . I finished implementing a version of this like the illustration \
> > below (I didn't add a Candidate class).  
> > 
> > ScopeValue
> > ObjectValue
> > ObjectAllocationValue
> > AutoBoxObjectValue
> > ObjectMergeValue
> > 
> > 
> > Here are some observations:
> > 
> > - I don't think ObjectMergeValue should be under ObjectValue. The two classes \
> > only have two fields in common (_id and _visited). I think it should be a \
> >                 subclass of ScopeValue.
> > - ObjectCandidateValue would need to go under ObjectAllocationValue because it \
> >                 essentially _is_ an ObjectAllocationValue in most aspects.
> > - I didn't add a ObjectCandidateValue class because that class would need to go \
> > under ObjectAllocationValue and we would still need to do an \
> > "is_object_candidate" before all "is_object_allocation" and we would end up in \
> > much the situation that we want to avoid - needing to do is_object_merge before \
> >                 is_object.
> > - It seems the best place to flag an object as candidate is really in \
> > ObjectAllocationValue. 
> > What do you think? As I said, I already have the code, if you want I can push it \
> > and you take a look.
> 
> Can `ObjectCandidateValue` be a wrapper around a `ObjectAllocationValue`?
> 
> It does make sense to separate `ObjectMergeValue` and `ObjectValue`.

I need to to study the code in more details. Seems like I'm missing something \
important here.

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/12897#discussion_r1179798907


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]