RFR: JDK-8013225: Refresh jdk's private ASM to the latest.
brian.goetz at oracle.com
Fri Apr 26 15:16:07 UTC 2013
How many years ago was this done? Hasn't the hardware reality changed since then? What might have been a justifiable crime then may just be a crime now.
On Apr 26, 2013, at 10:12 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
> On Apr 26, 2013, at 3:25 PM, Remi Forax <forax at univ-mlv.fr> wrote:
>> On 04/26/2013 01:43 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>>> On Apr 26, 2013, at 1:26 AM, Kumar Srinivasan <kumar.x.srinivasan at oracle.COM> wrote:
>>>> On 4/25/2013 3:53 PM, Mike Duigou wrote:
>>>>> The restyling changes obfustucated things a bit but I didn't see anything of concern in casual review.
>>>>> I had hoped to see the updated SmallSet that didn't try to implement Iterator directly.
>>>> Remi, Paul and Brian discussed that and struck a deal, maybe Paul/Brain
>>>> can shed some light on that.
>>> If we had stayed with the method names Iterator.forEach and Iterable.forEach (the former was renamed to Iterator.forEachRemaining) then that would have forced a change to SmallSet to fix its rampant layering violation. I don't recall we struck a deal to fix it, but it would be nice if we could do so.
>> The"rampant layering violation" was introduced consciously.
>> ASM is still used on small devices to re-transform bytecodes at runtime (ASM was originally created for that)
>> so the core of ASM tries to minimize its memory impact, hence use tricks to avoid to create more classes than it should.
> Is it really so terribly constrained that there is no room for another class?
> Out of curiosity how much does the static memory footprint increase by if you add an additional class implementing an Iterator over 0, 1, or 2 elements?
More information about the core-libs-dev