Review Request: Add ClassOption.STRONG and default is unspecified
mandy.chung at oracle.com
Fri Mar 13 22:31:57 UTC 2020
On 3/13/20 3:26 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
>> I agree we shouldn't double up a bunch of JVM TI methods by
>> introducing return-just-the-hidden-classes variants. Since there was
>> a performance/overhead concern with WEAK, let me ask a similar
>> question here: is there an overhead from making a hidden class
> No, as far as the current JDI implementation goes. Very small change
> is made in JDI to get jdb to debug on a hidden class, namely handle
> the hidden class' name properly (not a binary name).
> Serguei did the initial work in JDI to get jdb to debug a hidden class
> (both bytecode level and even source-level when SourceFile attribute
> is present.
W.r.t. unloading of a hidden class while its defining class loader is
alive, Serguei is still investigating its implication and also
scheduling a meeting with IntelliJ to discuss that.
More information about the valhalla-dev