[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: More finalize woes
From: |
Stephen Crawley |
Subject: |
Re: More finalize woes |
Date: |
Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:11:04 +1000 |
> On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Stephen Crawley wrote:
> > An unnecessary call to java.lang.Object.finalize() won't hurt anyone.
>
> Be careful: IIRC we once had a bug in Wonka which made _every_ instance
> appear to be finalizable, and the effect on performance was um, noticeable ...
Point taken. But my comment referred to the impact of adding an
explicit super.finalize() call to a non-trivial finalizer ... in the
context of a proposed change to gcj and/or jikes to add a compilation
warning for missing finalizer chaining calls.
Anyway, I've concluded that the detail we were arguing about is a "line
ball", and that it doesn't really make much difference either way which
way the change works.
-- Steve
- Re: More finalize woes, (continued)
- Re: More finalize woes, Per Bothner, 2003/03/06
- Re: More finalize woes, Stephen Crawley, 2003/03/06
- Re: More finalize woes, Stephen Crawley, 2003/03/06
- Re: More finalize woes, Per Bothner, 2003/03/06
- Re: More finalize woes, Stephen Crawley, 2003/03/06
- Re: More finalize woes, Per Bothner, 2003/03/07
- Re: More finalize woes, Tom Tromey, 2003/03/06
- Re: More finalize woes, Brian Jones, 2003/03/06
- Re: More finalize woes, Per Bothner, 2003/03/07
- Re: More finalize woes, Chris Gray, 2003/03/07
- Re: More finalize woes,
Stephen Crawley <=
RE: More finalize woes, Jeroen Frijters, 2003/03/04