array clone() vs Arrays.copyOf()

Lance Andersen - Oracle Lance.Andersen at
Wed Apr 27 18:04:25 UTC 2011

Hi David, Stuart
On Apr 26, 2011, at 8:34 PM, David Holmes wrote:

> Hi Stuart,
> Actually my comments more a response to Remi's assertion that clone should have been used instead, without giving any technical rationale as to why clone would be better, and so much better that it warranted Lance changing the code.
> Personally I think we should be steering people to Arrays.copyOf for all their array copying needs. clone() is effectively legacy code. It may have a small performance benefit though ultimately both methods are intrinisified by the same C2 code so I don't believe the gain would be much, and likely only with smaller arrays.
> BTW I think Lance received communication from others over the use of copyOf versus clone, I never made any additional comments on the relative merits.

Yes, I did receive additional input WRT using copyOf.   I am going to stick with copyOf and I appreciate Remi's time and input (as I really do not want to change BatchUpdateException again ;-) ).

Thank you for input.

My Best,
> Cheers,
> David
> Stuart Marks said the following on 04/27/11 01:20:
>> Hi David,
>> I have a general code style question about this. This arose in the review of Lance's webrevs for 7038565 [1] but I'm starting a new thread since I don't want further discussion to drag out that review.
>> In that review, Lance initially used Arrays.copyOf() to do defensive copying of an array. Rémi suggested calling clone() instead, and Lance changed it, but it looks like you (David) convinced him to change it back to use Arrays.copyOf().
>> (Quotes from the emails are below, but the attribution is hard to follow.)
>> What's the rationale for using Arrays.copyOf() in this case? To me, clone() is the clearest and most concise way of making the copy. Arrays.copyOf() is slightly more verbose and the reader has to do a tiny bit of analysis to determine that the length isn't being changed, since the value passed is the current length. Is there some other reason I'm not aware of that Arrays.copyOf() should be preferred?
>> I guess, one point is that it's hard to find the javadoc for the array clone() call. :-)
>> I guess I'm mainly aiming this at David since he seemed to be the strongest advocate for the use of Arrays.copyOf(), but I'd welcome opinions from others as well.
>> s'marks
>> [1]
>> On 4/25/11 9:28 AM, Lance Andersen - Oracle wrote:
>>> On Apr 23, 2011, at 6:11 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>>>> >  Rémi Forax said the following on 04/23/11 04:22:
>>>>> >>  On 04/22/2011 06:51 PM, Lance Andersen - Oracle wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>  You should use clone() instead of Arrays.copyOf.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>  Can you explain why  you have a preference for clone() in this case?
>>>>> >>  It does the job :)
>>>>> >>  Arrays.copyOf() allows to resize the array.
>>>> >
>>>> >  So? That's not a reason to not use Arrays.copyOf. Look at copyOf as the new improved version of clone.
>>>> >

Lance Andersen| Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037
Oracle Java Engineering 
1 Network Drive 
Burlington, MA 01803
Lance.Andersen at

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list