First of all, I do not understand, why alternate implementation was commited without ANY discussion on the mailing list.
So, it would be more correct from my POV to revert the patch, politely ask the authors of that patch to speak up, why it was required to reimplement finalizers and weak references support in DRLVM and then start a vote (if there will be anything to vote for) or fix the issues GCv5 authors have with current design present in DRLVM. <SNIP> Regards -- Pavel Pervov, Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division P.S. BTW, making such commit would prevent us from developing class unloading design which may show way better performance than original design had.
