Hi.
Weldon. Could You be so kind to read mail list <<[DRLVM][GCv5] patch for new LOS collector and finalizer/weakref support>>. I tried to start discussion in it, during patch review process. But it was stopped by Ligang Wang, because, as I understand, the "new" solution is not "real" solution (Work Balance Subsystem was turned of there, for example), "it's only a start, and at the moment only for GCv5". So it's a temporary solution. So I have several question for "new" scheme, and when it will be solved, we will be ready to discuss a future development of finalization system. I will be glad to share my ideas in this area. Salikh. You can find prepared by my patch HARMONY-2230<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2230>, which contains described by you feature, implemented in more correct way, as I think. Thanks. Pavel Afremov. On 12/15/06, Salikh Zakirov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Weldon Washburn wrote: > Harmony-2560 adds a second finalizer implementation to the Apache code > base. Speaking of finalizers design, I would like to note that HARMONY-1952 has a proof-of-concept idea of refining the current weak references design to prevent running java code from a vm_hint_finalize() callback, which may happen anywhere in the user code. > But "build > test" does not exercise finalizers to any degree. Not true. $ grep -lr finalize vm/tests/ vm/tests/kernel/java/lang/RuntimeAdditionalSupport2.java vm/tests/kernel/java/lang/RuntimeAdditionalTest40.java vm/tests/kernel/java/lang/RuntimeAdditionalTest43.java vm/tests/kernel/java/lang/RuntimeTest2.java vm/tests/kernel/java/lang/SystemExtensionTest.java vm/tests/smoke/exception/FinalizeStackTest.java vm/tests/smoke/gc/Finalizer.java vm/tests/smoke/gc/FinAlloc.java vm/tests/smoke/gc/RunFinalizersOnExitTest.java vm/tests/smoke/gc/SynchronizedFinilazersTest.java vm/tests/smoke/stress/Finalizer.java vm/tests/smoke/thread/InfiniteFinalizer.java But then, I believe that 'build test' run without any additional switches will not exercise any of GCv5. > In any case, long term we need just one finalizer design and > implementation. I would like to see a discussion on the merits of each of > the finalizer approaches. It would be good to pick one approach within one > week. Then we can clean up the code to reduce confusion. I guess you mean "it would be good if someone submits a _cleaned code_ within one week so that we could make a decision" ?
