Condy bsm should be idempotent

forax at forax at
Thu Aug 17 17:50:34 UTC 2017

----- Mail original -----
> De: "Brian Goetz" <brian.goetz at>
> À: forax at
> Cc: "amber-spec-experts" <amber-spec-experts at>
> Envoyé: Jeudi 17 Août 2017 19:35:33
> Objet: Re: Condy bsm should be idempotent

> This is going to be problematic for bootstraps that produce, e.g.,
> arrays; their equals() method delegates to Object.equals(), which means
> such bootstraps would have to maintain an (expensive!) cache for interning.

fully agree,
i've forget the case of array,
structurally equivalent <=> == for primitives, Object.equals for objects and Arrays.equals() for arrays.

> It is an old problem that constant resolution can be racy, but we would
> like for the JVM to manage the race, not the bootstraps.

either we specify that the BSM has to be idempotent and the VM doesn't have to enforce that,
the other solution is to say that the semantics of condy allow the resolved constant to be a result of a previous call of the BSM with the same arguments.

also, if we want to be able to resolve condy at jlink time, we also need the same kind of wordings, because currently a BSM can depend on the daytime. 


> On 8/17/2017 1:30 PM, forax at wrote:
>> equals,
>> if they are structurally equivalent, same name, same descriptor, same bsm and
>> same bsm arguments,
>> they should produce the same result.
>> Rémi
>> ----- Mail original -----
>>> De: "Brian Goetz" <brian.goetz at>
>>> À: "Remi Forax" <forax at>, "amber-spec-experts"
>>> <amber-spec-experts at>
>>> Envoyé: Jeudi 17 Août 2017 19:22:21
>>> Objet: Re: Condy bsm should be idempotent
>>> Can you clarify what you mean by "same"?  According to equals(), or ==?
>>> On 8/17/2017 12:15 PM, Remi Forax wrote:
>>>> There is a way to solve that, mandate the the BSM of a Condy as to be
>>>> idempotent, i.e. a call to a BSM with the same arguments should provide the
> >>> same result.

More information about the amber-spec-experts mailing list