[Doradus]

It's hard to say. The finalization spec is subtle.

To make this work, the JIT would need to perform escape analysis on the finalizer too (since the finalizer can make an object escape). If that analysis succeeds, then I suppose the object could be stack-allocated and the finalizer called directly. Even then, though, you would have to think carefully about all the subtle ramifications, like the consequences running a finalizer on an application thread instead of the finalizer thread. (What if the finalizer grabs a lock in an attempt to protect itself from the application code? Now this becomes a recursive lock by one thread, and so both the application code and the finalizer can enter it at the same time!)

If this ever became important enough, it's possible the JIT developers could get this right in every case with enough effort invested. I wouldn't count on that happening any time soon.

[These are my personal opinions, not those of my employer.]

[chrisseaton]

If this stuff isn't escaping then the JIT can prove that it isn't using a lock.

[Doradus]

Actually, synchronization is not an escape. Objects can be stack-allocated in methods that do synchronization.

[chrisseaton]

Yes I know - so why did you bring it up as an example of something that can prevent EA?

[Doradus]

(Whoops, I've misunderstood you twice. I think my other reply answered the wrong question. Let me try again.)

I didn't say synchronization can prevent EA. I said that calling a finalizer on an application thread can defeat the mutual exclusion that would usually be guaranteed by Java's locking. If the app thread holds a monitor when the finalizer is called, that would usually make the finalizer block until the app exits the monitor. If they're on the same thread, that becomes a recursive monitor enter on the same thread, which doesn't block.

Even if you and I solve this particular problem, these are only the problems that occurred to me off the top of my head. With these kinds of subtle, thorny issues lurking around every corner, I wouldn't expect JIT development teams to give this any real attention unless there's some workload where it matters.

[These are my personal opinions, not those of my employer.]

[Doradus]

I must have misunderstood you. You made a statement that I parsed as follows:

"If (this stuff isn't escaping) then (the JIT can prove that it isn't using a lock)."

That is logically equivalent to:

"If not (the JIT can prove that it isn't using a lock) then not (this stuff isn't escaping)."

Hence, I was explaining that using a lock doesn't count as an escape. But apparently I just misunderstood your meaning?