JEP proposed to target JDK 11: 318: Epsilon: An Arbitrarily Low-Overhead Garbage Collector

White, Derek Derek.White at
Thu Jan 18 16:06:27 UTC 2018

Hi Aleksey,

I know you were looking for more nit-picking, so here it goes:

The preferred way to add an aliased option is to add an entry to the aliased_jvm_flags table in arguments.cpp. It's basically a 1-line patch vs 4 files. For completeness add a test case to to ensure that the alias really flips the option.

Then there's only one actual option variable, and no confusion about which is really controlling the implementation.

Oh, and since you asked: +1 on "UseNoGC".

 - Derek

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jdk-dev [mailto:jdk-dev-bounces at] On Behalf Of
> Aleksey Shipilev
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 6:10 AM
> To: Erik Österlund <erik.osterlund at>; Stefan Johansson
> <stefan.johansson at>; jdk-dev at
> Subject: Re: JEP proposed to target JDK 11: 318: Epsilon: An Arbitrarily Low-
> Overhead Garbage Collector
> On 01/18/2018 10:26 AM, Erik Österlund wrote:
> > On 2018-01-18 10:12, Stefan Johansson wrote:
> >> On 2018-01-17 10:43, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> >>> name. So, as long as there is no overwhelming amount of strong
> >>> opinions against it, I'd keep the name as is.
> >> I'm with Charlie here, I think -XX:+UseNoGC would be better and much
> >> more descriptive name for this feature.
> > This is not a garbage collector, because it does not collect garbage.
> > It is an allocator. Therefore, I also think the -XX:+UseNoGC name is more
> descriptive.
> All right, I added -XX:+UseNoGC as the alias option to the current
> development patch:
> I still believe the purpose for this thread is not about getting tangled up in
> implementation details and bikeshedding. We would decide which alias to
> drop later. Makes everyone happy at the moment?
> -Aleksey

More information about the jdk-dev mailing list