Review Request: Add ClassOption.STRONG and default is unspecified

Mandy Chung mandy.chung at
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 
>> debuggable? 
> 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 mailing list