Re: Model 3 classfile design document

Bjorn B Vardal Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:06:06 -0800

Thanks! That matches the behaviour I would expect.

The piece in the document that led me to the different understanding of point 3/4 was point 4 in the examples on page 4:

R(Foo<int[]>) = ParameterizedType['L', "Foo", ArrayType[1, "I"]]

According to point 3 and 4 in your answer, this should be:

R(Foo<int[]>) = ParameterizedType['L', "Foo", "_"]

And just to confirm, not the following:

R(Foo<int[]>) = ParameterizedType['L', "Foo", ArrayType[1, "_"]]

--
Bjørn Vårdal

----- Original message -----
From: Brian Goetz <[email protected]>
To: Bjorn B Vardal/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Model 3 classfile design document
Date: Wed, Feb 10, 2016 11:51 AM

So, there’s two layers to this:
- What can you express in the bytecode;

- What will javac emit

We want the VM to be as dumb as possible with respect to parameterization and erasure. Therefore, we don’t ask the VM to reason about things like “ref types are erased”; the language compiler asks for either reification or erasure, and the VM happily complies. So ParamType[List, String] is a reified List<String>, and ParamType[List, erased] is an erased List.

Javac will likely never emit reified generics over references, but other languages could.

To your examples:

1. Javac will emit ParamType[Foo, erased]

2. Javac will emit ParamType[Foo, int] (reified)

3. Javac will emit ParamType[Foo, erased] (since int[] is a reference type)

4. Javac will emit ParamType[Foo, erased] (same)

Did I make a mistake in the doc that suggested otherwise for 3/4? Please correct me!

On Feb 10, 2016, at 3:50 PM, Bjorn B Vardal <[email protected]> wrote:

I have a question about reifying array types. This is what I understand is the proposed behaviour:

Foo<String> - Reference, so erased

Foo<int> - Primitive, so reified

Foo<int[]> - In the Model 3 Classfile Design document, this is reified.

Foo<String[]> - Unclear - erased as reference, or reified as array?

The first two are quite clear, but I'm wondering about 3 and 4. What is the reason for reifying the int[] in the Model 3 document? Considering that both int[] and String are subclasses of Object, can we not erase array types? If we can't erase them, does that apply to reference arrays as well, e.g. String[]?

--
Bjørn Vårdal

----- Original message -----
From: Brian Goetz <[email protected]>
Sent by: "valhalla-spec-experts" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc:
Subject: Model 3 classfile design document
Date: Fri, Jan 22, 2016 11:53 AM

Please find a document here:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~briangoetz/valhalla/eg-attachments/model3-01.html

that describes our current thinking for evolving the classfile format to
clearly and efficiently represent parametric polymorphism. The early
concepts of this approach were outlined in my talk at JVMLS last year;
this represents a refinement of those ideas, and a reasonable "stake in
the ground" description of what seems the most sensible way to balance
preserving parametric information in the classfile without imposing
excessive runtime costs for loading specializations.

We're working on an updated compiler prototype which people will be able
to play with soon (along with a formal model.)

Please ask questions!

Some things this document does not address yet:
  - How we deal with types implicit in the bytecodes (aload vs iload)
and how they get specialized;
  - How we represent restricted methods in the classfile;
  - How we represent the wildcard type Foo<any>

Re: Model 3 classfile design document

Reply via email to