RFC: Epsilon GC JEP

Aleksey Shipilev shade at redhat.com
Wed Jul 19 12:12:28 UTC 2017

On 07/19/2017 11:17 AM, Erik Helin wrote:
> On 07/18/2017 05:41 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>>> Yes, you always have to weigh the benefits against the costs, and in this case,
>>> exposing Epsilon GC to non-JVM developers seems, at least for now and to me,
>>> taht the benefits do not outweigh the costs. Who knows, maybe this will change
>>> and we redo the cost/benefit analysis? It is very easy to go from developer flag
>>> to experimental flag, it is way, way harder to go from experimental flag to
>>> developer flag.
>> Okay, that sounds like a compromise to me: push Epsilon under "develop" flag,
>> and then ask users or downstreams to switch it to "product" if they want. This
>> is not ideal, but it works. Does that resolve your concerns?
> Yep, I would prefer it to be a develop flag. Will you update the JEP to reflect
> this?


Better yet, the implementation is updated to make Epsilon 'develop'. Which
required some trickery to make the tests pass with release builds, and survive
changing the flag back to 'product' or 'experimental' without omitting the
tests. Also, my build servers now patch Epsilon builds back to 'experimental'.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-gc-dev/attachments/20170719/458fed0c/signature.asc>

More information about the hotspot-gc-dev mailing list