> On Oct 7, 2016, at 11:25 AM, Brent Christian
> wrote:
>
> On 10/5/16 4:43 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>>>
Okay but this will still affect the lifecycle of the PDs because
without the strong reference in L, those weak references in the VM
will quickly
On 10/5/16 4:43 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Okay but this will still affect the lifecycle of the PDs because
without the strong reference in L, those weak references in the VM
will quickly be cleared.
There's also a strong reference held by the Class object itself (on the
VM side [1]).
Thanks
On 6/10/2016 9:19 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
On Oct 5, 2016, at 4:02 PM, David Holmes wrote:
On 6/10/2016 8:55 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
Note that PD is the protection domain of an initiating class that resolves a
target type T. PD is kept in T’s class loader L. It’s
> On Oct 5, 2016, at 4:02 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>
> On 6/10/2016 8:55 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
>>
>>
>> Note that PD is the protection domain of an initiating class that resolves a
>> target type T. PD is kept in T’s class loader L. It’s not the protection
>>
On 6/10/2016 8:55 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
On Oct 5, 2016, at 2:26 PM, David Holmes wrote:
On 6/10/2016 6:19 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
Since domains is not used and not intended to keep PD alive and VM maintains
its own cache of these initiating PD for performance,
> On Oct 5, 2016, at 2:26 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>
> On 6/10/2016 6:19 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
>>
>>
>> Since domains is not used and not intended to keep PD alive and VM maintains
>> its own cache of these initiating PD for performance, removing domains field
>>
Yes! Good catch, thanks.
-Brent
On 10/5/16 2:08 PM, Naoto Sato wrote:
Typo in ClassForNameLeak.java? At line 103, "change" -> "chance"?
Naoto
On 10/5/16 12:38 PM, Brent Christian wrote:
Hi,
Please review my fix for 8151486, "Class.forName causes memory leak".
Bug:
On 6/10/2016 6:19 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
On Oct 5, 2016, at 12:38 PM, Brent Christian wrote:
Hi,
Please review my fix for 8151486, "Class.forName causes memory leak".
Bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8151486
Webrev:
Typo in ClassForNameLeak.java? At line 103, "change" -> "chance"?
Naoto
On 10/5/16 12:38 PM, Brent Christian wrote:
Hi,
Please review my fix for 8151486, "Class.forName causes memory leak".
Bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8151486
Webrev:
> On Oct 5, 2016, at 12:38 PM, Brent Christian
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Please review my fix for 8151486, "Class.forName causes memory leak".
>
> Bug:
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8151486
> Webrev:
>
Hi,
Please review my fix for 8151486, "Class.forName causes memory leak".
Bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8151486
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bchristi/8151486/webrev.00/
The test case reproduces the bug as such:
With a SecurityManager enabled, a class ("ClassForName") is
11 matches
Mail list logo