Initial feedback on Minimal Value Types 0.2 for discussion
Maurizio Cimadamore
maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com
Tue Mar 28 20:43:36 UTC 2017
What I really meant with that comment is that, I think we should expect
that once boxed values are stored in locals, their identity stays the same.
In other words:
o == o
should always be true, regardless of values, refs, boxing.
Maurizio
On 28/03/17 21:37, Remi Forax wrote:
> Question, why a value type can not loss identity inside a method ?
> Is it true for local variable access ? for field access ? for static
> access ?
>
> V value = ...
> Object o = v;
> Object o2 = v;
> o == o2 ??
>
> field.o = v;
> o == field.o ?? // what about the concurrent access
>
> Class.o = v;
> o == Class.o ??
>
> I also wonder if it will not have an impact regarding OSR when part of
> the code is in the interpreter and part of the code is JITed.
>
> Rémi
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *De: *"Karen Kinnear" <karen.kinnear at oracle.com>
> *À: *"Bjorn B Vardal" <bjornvar at ca.ibm.com>
> *Cc: *valhalla-spec-experts at openjdk.java.net
> *Envoyé: *Mardi 28 Mars 2017 20:45:06
> *Objet: *Re: Initial feedback on Minimal Value Types 0.2 for
> discussion
>
> Summary notes from meeting 3/15/17:
> attendees: Brian, Doug Lea, Stas, Frederic, Bjorn, Tobias, Mr
> Simms, Vladimir I, Maurizio, Karen, John
>
> 1. Identity Major decision:
> Doug: It is ok if a value type box does NOT retain identity.
> Do not be overly concerned with sync, ===, hashcode. Let’s see
> if the benefits outweigh the problems.
> We need to set clear expectations for customers.
>
> ed. note: Maurizio clarified later that it is critical that a
> value type not lose identity within
> a given method, but it is ok to lose identity across methods.
>
> It is ok if the vm throws an exception - e.g.
> IllegalMonitorStateException when attempting to lock a Value Type,
> ok if we do that based on a command-line flag to not slow down
> normal execution.
>
> 2. Evolution approach
> can evolve experimental annex to JVMS - optional to implement,
> with minor change to classfile, byte codes, etc.
> no story for experimental JLS
> Doug suggested: could have an experimental javac documentation
>
> 3. vdefault/vwithfield
> - constructor as static factory method
> - vdefault - create 0-filled default value type
> - only valid within constructor
> - note a value type array - initial array allows
> default value to escape
> - vwithfield - copy-on-write a new value type with one
> modified field
> - allows final fields to be final (value type is immutable)
> - JIT can optimized via escape analysis
> - only within value class (which means both the value
> capable class and the DVT)
>
> 4. Requested Extensions:
> - exploring adding references - both IBM and Oracle believe
> customers will need this for use cases
> - support for VCC implementing interfaces - do users need this?
> - propose: go to Early Access without this and see if it is
> required
>
> - IBM and Oracle investigating
> - note: VM would do no magic boxing, and for MVT, would
> require boxing to invoke default methods
> 5. Packed Objects:
> AI: IBM - Doug requested a summary of differences between
> PackedObjects and MVT
> John note: Packed Objects have identity, others see changes
> through the reference
>
> 6. JVMS changes:
> AI: Oracle - need to propose a draft for the JVMS extensions
>
> 7. early access timing:
> Note: need to ensure that IBM and Oracle are in sync on Early
> Access timing
>
> Meeting March 29th - need to discuss any other Shady Values
> version 0.2 changes and
> timing.
>
> *** will need a Shady Values update ***
>
> thanks,
> Karen
>
> On Mar 15, 2017, at 1:20 AM, Karen Kinnear
> <karen.kinnear at oracle.com <mailto:karen.kinnear at oracle.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Summary notes from meeting 2/15/17 - embedded below, starting
> with #8
>
> Meeting 3/16/17:
> — there are a few more already identified topics to discuss
> — welcome additional questions/suggestions
> — a couple of topics to revisit (or perhaps put on an open
> issues list until we have more information or feedback)
>
> thanks,
> Karen
>
>
> On Feb 10, 2017, at 9:47 AM, Karen Kinnear
> <karen.kinnear at oracle.com
> <mailto:karen.kinnear at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
> John - please correct
>
> Bjorn,
>
> Good question. This was news to us as well, so John will
> have the final word.
>
> My assumption is that he means that:
> If you create an array of Value-Capable-Classes that you
> would not automagically also create an equivalent
> array of the Derived Value Types.
> That the MethodHandle APIs could explicitly, through new
> byte codes create arrays of the DVTs by passing a
> Derived Value Type as the “array ref” to anewarray or
> multianewarray.
> I presume that any explicit byte code generation by power
> users to go with this code could use the same mechanism.
>
> thanks,
> Karen
>
> On Feb 9, 2017, at 10:56 PM, Bjorn B Vardal
> <bjornvar at ca.ibm.com <mailto:bjornvar at ca.ibm.com>> wrote:
>
> Karen / John: Can you clarify this? Do you mean that
> they will only be flattened when created using the
> reflection / MethodHandle API?
> /> John: MVT 1.0 will only flatten arrays reflectively/
> *--*
> *Bjørn Vårdal*
> J9 Java Virtual Machine Developer
> IBM Runtimes
>
> ----- Original message -----
> From: Karen Kinnear <karen.kinnear at oracle.com
> <mailto:karen.kinnear at oracle.com>>
> Sent by: "valhalla-spec-experts"
> <valhalla-spec-experts-bounces at openjdk.java.net
> <mailto:valhalla-spec-experts-bounces at openjdk.java.net>>
> To: John Rose <john.r.rose at oracle.com
> <mailto:john.r.rose at oracle.com>>
> Cc:valhalla-spec-experts at openjdk.java.net
> <mailto:valhalla-spec-experts at openjdk.java.net>
> Subject: Re: Initial feedback on Minimal Value
> Types 0.2 for discussion
> Date: Thu, Feb 9, 2017 6:31 PM
>
> Notes from discussion on Feb 01,2017. Feedback
> welcome.
> John - one question extracted at the top from the
> embedded notes.
>
> 11. "interfaces (especially with default
> methods)"
> - please change p.6 to clarify that
> there are no value type interfaces period.
>
> Ed note: There is a distinction here between
> 11a) defining an interface as a VCC with a
> derived DVT and
> 11b) whether the POJO which defines the VCC can
> implement interfaces. This discussion was about
> whether
> a POJO which defines the VCC can implement interfaces.
> John: MVT 1.0 : No value capable interfaces for
> JVMT 1.0.
> Ed note: was this the answer to 11a or 11b above
> please?
>
> On Feb 9, 2017, at 5:43 PM, Karen Kinnear
> <karen.kinnear at oracle.com
> <mailto:karen.kinnear at oracle.com>> wrote:
> (This is a resend of an email I sent
> tovalhalla-dev at openjdk.java.net
> <mailto:valhalla-dev at openjdk.java.net>on
> January 23)
> Review of Minimal Value Types August 2016
> Shady Edition (v 0.2)
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jrose/values/shady-values.html
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ejrose/values/shady-values.html>
> Questions/Comments:
> abbreviations used: VCC: value-capable class,
> DVT: derived value type
> 1. Goals
> -- might be worth adding to the bullets:
> Allow use of existing toolchain where
> possible including IDEs and debuggers
>
> John: this is just a review comment, no discussion
> required.
>
> 2. Features:
> "Three" bytecode instructions ->"A small
> set of”
>
> John: just a text edit to encompass extensions in
> #12 below, not yet discussed as a group.
>
> 3. Typically, value-capable classes will not
> be exported.
> Is the reason for this to limit exposure
> since the expectation is that the
> initial APIs and mechanisms will change?
>
> John: “yes”. This does not have to be enforced in
> the implementation.
> ed. note: perhaps we could remove this from the
> MVT specification.
>
> 4. Value-capable classes: supporting methods
> p.3 "This design endows both boxes and pure
> values with a common set of methods; it
> "lifts" box methods
> onto the derived values."
> p.5 "The synthetic class has the given
> fields (unchanged) and has no methods"
> p.5 "Meanwhile, all methods (and other
> class features) stay on the value-capable
> class. The value type
> proper is just a "dumb struct"
> containing the extracted fields"
> - given that in the MVT model we are
> starting with a POJO box, and instance methods
> that clearly
> take an Object as a receiver, one
> proposal for the initial MVT approach would be
> to have
> all methods only supported by the box,
> and require boxing to invoke any methods
> - so I think the first quote would need
> either removal or modification
>
> John: agreed.
> Karen: See #9 below: Evolved proposal would keep
> the POJO, which we call the Value Capable Class
> (VCC) unchanged,
> and derive a Derived Value Type (DVT) which would
> only contain a copy of the immutable instance
> fields, i.e. be
> a “dumb struct”.
> Bjorn: In this model, the source class would be
> the same as the box class, if we leave the
> instance fields in it. And we
> would box to invoke methods for the MVT 1.0 timeframe.
> John: Agreed.
> John: Longer-term - will want to invoke methods on
> values as soon as we can. We will need source
> support for that.
> John: Minimal Value Type (MVT) programming models:
> 1) source — only works for boxes
> 2) Method Handle reflection - for early adopters
> 3) bytecodes
> The MethodHandle/ValueFactory approach is clearly
> described.
> The language and byte code we will use longterm
> are still uncertain.
> Bjorn: What would be enabled by having all members
> in the value vs. just the [instance] fields in the
> value?
> Karen: Challenge is instance methods, where the
> type of the receiver is expected to be a VCC, not
> a DVT. This same
> expectation applies to any method called from the
> instance method, or any field in which the
> receiver is stored.
> John: we are using existing javac support,
> therefore we need to define value types
> indirectly, box first. This is not the longterm plan.
> MethodHandles will provide a direct way of
> speaking of the values. The MethodHandle runtime
> will spin byte codes.
> Maurizio: it is easy to just map the fields
> Karen: Methods are coded on the box. Static fields
> we left on the box. So we just lift the instance
> fields.
> John: We box the value to run methods. We want to
> preserve “vagueness”.
> Legacy code could misuse identity e.g. equals,
> hashcode, sync
> This only works for early adopters who are
> aware of value-capable-class identitylessness and
> implications
> Maurizio: If you pass the VCC to another method
> you are passing the box and no mechanical
> transformation is needed.
> Karen: You could have a problem if you were to
> pass the DVT as an argument when an object is expected
> John: clarify distinction between QType and LType
> QType: no identity, not nullable, not shared
> visible state, no sync, no reference equality
> LType: identity, nullable, shared visible state
> for sync and reference equality
> semantic mismatch: nulls, if_acmp_eq/ne
> MVT provides a short-term hack - which is ok
> for early adopters
> in future expect explicit boxes for QTypes
> which are LTypes which actually are identityful
> unlike the temporary VCCs
> Bjorn: differences between QTypes and LTypes like
> int and Integer, where only Integer provides methods?
> John: short-term there will be no methods on a DVT.
> longer-term value types will have methods
> verifier will not accept LType for a QType byte code
> Bjorn: if QType is a subset of an LType is it ok
> to convert?
> John: want ability farther future to have
> different behaviors and different stack
> representation.
> In progress, exploring possibly interpreter
> implementations, things like allowing the vm to
> buffer QTypes off the java heap
> presumes a universal type must declare whether it
> has identity or not
> Bjorn: with boxing and unboxing, if you say you
> have “no identity” do you still have something?
> John: must box to call a method, no one can rely
> on the identity so you can elide it.
> Ed note: this is only possibly temporarily because
> the value-capable-class is defined as not being
> able to rely on identity.
> This will not carry over to a more general value
> type approach if we wish to have value types box
> to identityful LTypes which
> can be used by existing code that is expecting a
> subtype of Object or an Interface as defined today.
> John: after MVT 1.0, exploring a union type,
> “UType” which is a common type that could contain
> either a QType or its corresponding
> LType
>
> 5. Value bytecodes
> p.11 "Method handles and invokedynamic
> will always allow bytecode to invoke methods
> on Q-types".
> - is this still accurate in the context
> above? I know the comment says that internally
> the MH might box the Qtype, but do we still
> want to support MH and indy to appear to
> invoke methods on Q-types?
>
> Ed note: I don’t if we answered this question.
>
> 6. Restrictions on the POJO:
> A. It would help to have a bulleted list of
> restrictions
> B. Clarify error/exception to throw - perhaps
> ClassFormatError for all of these?
> C. Request to not support VCC on interfaces at
> all for MVT 1.0
> I know the restrictions are intermixed in
> the text today. This is what I extracted:
> (p.3-4, 6)
> VCC (and probably going forward)
> 1. VCC superclass must be Object (and
> should be omitted)
> 2. the class must be final
> 3. all fields must be final
> - please clarify - all instance fields
> must be final
>
> John: yes
>
> 4. all constructors private
>
> Maurizio: why?
> Note that there is NO constructor for the DVT. It
> can be created via a vunbox or vdefault + vwithfield
> John: ok to change the spec so the VCC constructor
> is not limited to being private.
>
> 5. must replace equals, hashcode, toString
> (with current Object syntax)
> 6. may not use any methods provided on Object
> specifically: may not use clone,
> finalize, wait, notify, notifyAll (directly)
> 7. may use getClass
> MVT 1.0 additional limitations
> 9. may contain primitive instance fields,
> but no reference instance fields
> - please update document to clarify
> this restriction is for instance fields only
>
> Karen: both IBM and Oracle JVM engineers are
> interested in an optional extension to support
> references instance fields.
> Maurizio: If only primitives allowed, then no
> support for generics is needed.
> Clarification for Karen: statics can have generics
> with erasure today, but can not mention type
> variables. (thanks :-)
> Bjorn: With today’s erased generics, this is not a
> problem
> John: Ok to explore having references in instance
> fields, generics are ok. No type variables in
> instance fields
> and no “any” generics.
>
> 2/15/17: rediscussed:
> Maurizio - higher perceived benefit to users to have reference
> fields in VCC/DVT - e.g. Strings
> John concern: hard to do embedded references in values
> Mr Simms: almost have it now
> — agreed: let’s give it a short
>
> 10. may not contain generic instance fields
> - please update document to clarify
> this restriction is for instance fields only
> - it is my understanding that you can’t
> have generic static fields at all
> 11. "interfaces (especially with default
> methods)"
> - please change p.6 to clarify that
> there are no value type interfaces period.
>
> Ed note: There is a distinction here between
> 11a) defining an interface as a VCC with a
> derived DVT and
> 11b) whether the POJO which defines the VCC can
> implement interfaces. This discussion was about
> whether
> a POJO which defines the VCC can implement interfaces.
> Karen: concern about setting expectations. Current
> interfaces assume identity.
> Maurizio: could always box to call interface methods.
> John: Question: do early adopters need interfaces?
> Vladimir Ivanov: Yes
> note: Vector API has no benefits using MVT 1.0.
> Ed note: later email clarification from Vlad:
> Interface-based Vector API version [1] does not
> benefit from MVT 1.0. All operations are expressed
> as interface
> calls and require vector boxes.
> That is out of scope for MVT 1.0.
> Vectors exploring an alternative API, exposing
> operations as MethodHandles. This is less
> convenient to use, but
> allows experimenting to find performance benefits.
> John: MVT: box to get to methods. Longterm get to
> call I.defaultmethod without boxing
> Ed. note: Interface default method will need
> restrictions.
> John: MVT 1.0 : No value capable interfaces for
> JVMT 1.0.
> Ed note: was this the answer to 11a or 11b above
> please?
>
> I believe John agreed that we can not use a VCC/DVT to define
> an interface
>
> Open Question:
> Do we need VCC/DVT to support interfaces and require boxing to
> invoke default methods?
> Perhaps try early access without support for interfaces and
> get feedback?
>
> Concerns: existing interfaces with default methods - assume
> identity
> Longer-term interfaces that can be implemented by valhalla
> value types will need to be
> special interfaces which support UTypes - union of LType and
> QType - so that they
> can be implemented by references or by value types.
> UType - must not assume identity, must retain identity if
> it has it
> QType - not assume identity
> LType - must preserve identity
> John/Brian - outline of road ahead - post MVT 1.0 - looking at
> a potential carrier or wrapper for
> an “any” type
> Dan: If a local is a UType - will enforce single type through
> program?
> John: simple answer - not fixed type slots
> Dan: verification issues
> John: like a cast - must be explicit in byte codes and it
> might fail
> LType-> UType always valid, UType-> LType might fail
>
> John: longer-term:
> L-Type: always identity
> Q- Type: never identity
> U-Type: do not assume identity, must preserve
> identity
>
> 12. 0.2 version states: may not contain a
> value class as an instance field
> - see below for further discussion
>
> 7. potential extensions:
> 12. 0.2 version states: value class may not
> contain a value class as an instance field
> - we would like to propose supporting this
> - perhaps as an optional extension?
> - we would need to add an exception for
> handling circularity
> - note: no way to express this in java,
> but you could express in a classfile
>
> John: NO for MVT 1.0. Potential ambiguity whether
> the field contains a value capable class or a
> derived value type
> javac just deals with boxes, so no flattening
> here. Wants same layouts whether boxed or not.
> John: MVT 1.0 will only flatten arrays reflectively
> End of discussion
> thanks,
> Karen
> =======
>
> 8. Splitting the value type from the object type
> Propose not using the nested class approach,
> to not tie us into this relationship longer term
> - so remove example and the "looks like an
> inner class"
> - note: a key point here is how the user
> generating bytecodes would know the generated
> name of the DVT
> This will need further discussion.
> In the constant pool, references can use
> Qpackage.Class; rather than Lpackage.Class;
> Are there requirements for java sources to be
> able to refer to the derived value type by name?
> e.g. Class.forName()? If not, then perhaps the
> temporary naming convention could be kept
> internal?
>
> #8: not use nested class relationship between VCC and DVT:
> Bjorn: not an issue either way
> *** remove from spec: Does not belong in the spec - this is an
> implementation detail
> We don’t want to expose this as a nested class
> - reflection might expose differently
> - private static member access needs special handling, but
> not via javac trampolines
> - Minimal Value Types will to have nest mate support
> Note: box must be in the same package & module
> Need a way to mark the DVT - e.g. ACC_VALUE (other options ok)
>
> Note : DVT name should not be exposed. Ok to use
> unsafe.defineAnonymousClass
> to generate the DVT. The VM generates the DVT.
> API ValueType.valueclass() returns, but doesn’t need to know
> how generated
>
> Goal: VM’s problem to resolve QPoint descriptor reference to
> DVT for Point
> *** add to spec: requirement: not want byte code to resolve
> LPoint$12345 (i.e.
> a temporary name) - want ClassNotFound here
>
> 9. Splitting the value type from the object type
> p.5 "The original class is given a new
> synthetic field of the new value type, to hold
> the state for the original class".
> - to simplify implementation, and allow
> experiments which go beyond the initial MVT
> plans, we propose
> * that the VCC is left untouched
> * the DVT has a copy of the immutable
> instance fields
> - We think this qualifies as "any equivalent
> technique" on p.5
> - the quote above would need modifying or removing
>
> Agreed.
>
> 10. Scoping of these features
> - exploring adding class file capability bits
> for experimental features, as a versioning
> approach
> - we will want to pin this down later in the
> cycle
>
> Brainstormed possibility of adding capability bits in minor
> version. Would need to go through JCP.
> editor’s note: may need to revisit this - turns out minor
> version 45.3 was already used and set a precedent
> that changes in a minor version would all be present in
> follow-on major versions. So probably not in scope for MVT.
>
> 11. JVM changes to support Q-types
> - "So when the class loader loads an object
> whose fields are Q_types, it must resolve (and
> perhaps load)
> the classes of those Q_types, ..."
> - for instance fields that are Q-types, I
> believe we need to explicitly specify
> temporary JVMS load/link/init rules
> (I will propose an early draft in a later
> email).
> - e.g. Specifically, for instance fields
> that are Q-types, we would propose requiring
> eager loading of the Q-types,
> modifying JVMS 5.3.5 Deriving a Class
> from a class File Representation. Bullets 3
> and 4 described eager resolution
> of the direct superclass and direct
> superinterfaces. The expectation is that an
> additional bullet would be added
> for direct instance fields that are Q-types.
> - note that this change would make it the
> JVM's responsibility, not the class loaders'
> responsibility,
> to resolve the classes of those Q-types.
> Note: in the JVMS load/link/init rules I
> will also propose VCC/DVT load/link/init
> requirements.
>
> Note: there are two discussions here relative to
> load/link/init rules.
> One is for the DVT/VCC relationship.
> Karen: always load VCC first
> Bjorn: if MH API: always create VCC first
> AI: Karen - send load/link/init proposal for MVT
>
> Another is for flattening. Note VCC and DVT have the same
> field reference types, which means no
> QType fields, so no flattened fields in a DVT.
>
> Note: VCC can not mention QTypes in source, since javac can
> not translate.
>
> Bjorn: Can we use QTypes in descriptors of methods and fields
> if we spin byte codes?
> John: MethodHandles work with QTypes, therefore need an
> internal translation, therefore need to
> handle QTypes in descriptors, therefore ok to spin byte codes
> like MethodHandles can.
>
> This is not a gating goal for MVT, but is not forbidden.
>
> Is it ok to flatten a QType field?
>
> Maurizio:
> VCC->DVT can NOT change descriptor, therefore can not contain
> a QType.
>
> John: For MethodHandles and classes spun from byte codes with
> QType fields,
> it is ok to flatten the QType.
> - implementation choice.
> - not required, but ok if not hard
>
> (ed. note: I have other notes on flattening which I can not
> translate - if others have notes
> on non-array flattening please let me know)
>
> We will however support flattening for arrays.
> Ed note: thanks to Mr. Simms - he realized we need to
> initialize (and therefore link) any value type that
> is the element type for anewarray/multianewarray.
>
> Array flattening:
> this will not be done automagically
> flatten array only if explicitly an array of value types,
> i.e. anewarray/multianewarray with a DVT as the
> objectref
>
> TODO: open questions - need to investigate:
> - Need to check how core reflection would deal with seeing
> an object that is a DVTarray
> - What does core reflection do if handed the j.l.Class for
> a DVT?
> - Class.forName should not be able to find a j.l.Class for
> a DVT
>
>
> 12. value bytecodes
> - the following are useful in the
> MethodHandle implementation, and likely to be
> useful for direct bytecode access
> - we would like to propose the following as
> the minimal bytecode set:
> in addition to vload, vstore, vreturn (and
> slot-specific variants)
> - vdefault/vwithfield
>
> open issue
> Maurizio: nice on paper
> In practice: challenges - vwithfield write to final field
> note: all fields in DVT are final
>
> If we do not provide vdefault/vwithfield, but only provide
> vbox/vunbox
> MethodHandles will use unsafe to set fields and then unbox
> ed. note - need to revisit
>
> - vbox/vunbox
>
> YES
> Dan: what about a2b vs. vbox/vunbox?
> ed note: we initially investigated a general a2b and we don’t
> yet have a good way to define a CONSTANT_Type
> or equivalent which we would need, so we found it easier to
> explicitly do vbox/vunbox. (need to bring up in next meeting)
>
> - vaload/vastore
>
> YES
>
> - vgetfield (fetch a field from a value type)
>
> YES
>
> - NOT vcmp_eq/ne (equality can be
> implemented as component-wise comparison)
> clarify that for MVT 1.0, statics are only
> available through the box. (TODO: where does
> this go in shady?)
> 13. value bytecodes
> - open issue
> - typed prefix vs. vbytecodes for
> initial prototype
> 14. Value bytecodes
> use of Qtype as class component:
> "Initially the only valid use of a Q-type [is]
> as the class component of a CONSTANT_Methodref
> or CONSTANT_Fieldref
> is as a CONSTANT_MethodHandle constant."
> - if we extend the bytecodes as above, and we
> disallow anyone (MethodHandles, bytecodes)
> from invoking methods on Qtypes, we
> could modify this to disallow Q-types for
> CONSTANT_Methodref or
> CONSTANT_InterfaceMethodRef completely.
> - but perhaps you want the MethodHandles to be
> able to invoke methods on DVTs by dynamically
> boxing them. This works as long
> as the methods don't assume identity.
> 15. Q-types and bytecodes
> We propose modifying anewarray and
> multianewarray to allow operands that are Q-types.
> 16. Value Type Reflection
> With the proposed modifications in #8 above:
> i.e. leaving the VCC untouched and copying the
> instance fields to the DVT, the VCC now
> matches the source file.
> So Class.forName() would return the VCC which
> is the original POJO which fits the backward
> compatibility model.
> So we don't need a separate SourceClass, but
> leaving it in the proposal provides
> implementation flexibility.
> 17. Q-type method handles & behaviors
> "possible bytecode"
> might want to change vnew to vdefault
> these are samples and evolving, so maybe not
> worth changing
> I did not do this level of detailed review for
> the Future Work yet.
> thanks,
> Karen
>
> On Sep 1, 2016, at 8:08 PM, John Rose
> <john.r.rose at oracle.com
> <mailto:john.r.rose at oracle.com>> wrote:
> On Aug 31, 2016, at 11:59 PM, John Rose
> <john.r.rose at oracle.com
> <mailto:john.r.rose at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>
> I have updated of this document to
> reflect comments so far.
> It is stored to CR (in place) and
> enclosed here.
> — John
>
> Link:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jrose/values/shady-values.html
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ejrose/values/shady-values.html>
>
> <shady-values.html>
>
>
> I have updated the document again with
> small corrections and clarifications.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/valhalla-spec-experts/attachments/20170328/b6d1c292/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the valhalla-spec-experts
mailing list