On 9/22/2021 4:53 PM, Claes Redestad wrote:
On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 11:06:15 GMT, Сергей Цыпанов
<github.com+10835776+stsypa...@openjdk.org> wrote:
Currently the method is implemented like
public List<Class<?>> parameterList() {
return Collections.unmodifiableList(Arrays.asList(ptypes.clone()));
}
This seems to be excessive, as three objects are allocated here. Instead we can
use `List.of(ptypes)` which doesn't allocate anything for empty array and for
one of length 1 and 2 it allocates lightweight objects with 2 fields, still
copying longer arrays. This is likely to be fruitful as most of methods have
0-2 parameters.
Also there is a couple of cases when `MethodType.parameterLis()` is called to
get its size, which is excessive either as we can use
`MethodType.parameterCount()` instead.
I think it's OK and even expected to file a CSRs retroactively when you realize
post integration that there's a behavior change. I recall doing so at least
once in the past.
This scenario is discussed in the CSR FAQ:
Q: Timing wise, when do I need to file a CSR request?
A: A CSR request needs to be filed and approved /before/ the
corresponding change is pushed to a JDK release line of development.
In exceptional circumstances, the need for a CSR review may be
recognized only after a push has already occurred. In such cases, a
retroactive CSR review can be conducted. The results of such a
retroactive review may require updates to the change, up to and
including complete removal of the change.
https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/csr/CSR+FAQs
For the change in question, are there any interactions with class file
redefinition effects?
-Joe
