On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 09:04:37 GMT, Kim Barrett <kbarr...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> > > Using REF_SOFT seems too hacky. > > > > > > Just to put all alternatives on the table. The use of `REF_SOFT` is > > ephemeral. > > [...] > > I have no particular preference. What does everyone think? > > I also think using REF_SOFT like that is overly hacky. > > I think there is still a bootstrapping weirdness, whether using REF_REFERENCE > or using Stefan's approach. I think Soft/Weak/Final/PhantomReference_klass > get constructed with the reftype of Reference_klass (whatever that is), and > then have it later updated to the correct value. In that respect REF_OTHER > seems better than REF_REFERENCE. So I no longer like the renaming. Getting > rid of it entirely with Stefan's approach, they get REF_NONE initially and > then set to the proper value; that's far from the worst bootstrapping kludge > I've ever seen. I think we can fix the bootstrapping kludge with something like this: https://github.com/stefank/jdk/commit/e62ddb780730dbb5d6766f882346bf0fcc6cdb59 With this patch, we'll always have the correct _reference_type after the InstanceRefKlass constructor has run. (Patch has not gone through full testing yet) ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8332
