This is the mail archive of the java-discuss@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the Java project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: _Jv_HashCode

To: Java Discuss List <java-discuss at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>
Subject: Re: _Jv_HashCode
From: Jeff Sturm <jeff dot sturm at appnet dot com>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 13:24:52 -0400
Organization: AppNet
References: <878zxjnrs4.fsf@cygnus.com> <m2zopzyzn7.fsf@kelso.bothner.com> <200005101519.IAA29610@ferrule.cygnus.com> <39198C13.44AF01A3@sigma6.com> <m24s86z7os.fsf@kelso.bothner.com>

Per Bothner wrote:
> > Sun's javadoc says they are equivalent:
> 
> No, Sun's javadoc does *not* say that System.identityHashCode(OBJ)
> is the same as (jint)(OBJ).

Ugh.  I misread the message.  You're right, of course.

> Obviously, for a copying collector, it can't be.

Right.  The MS VM for example does not use addresses for
identityhashCode().  (And it runs a copying collector.)

-- 
Jeff Sturm
jeff.sturm@appnet.com

References:
- _Jv_HashCode
  - From: Tom Tromey
- Re: _Jv_HashCode
  - From: Per Bothner
- Re: _Jv_HashCode
  - From: Tom Tromey
- Re: _Jv_HashCode
  - From: Jeff Sturm
- Re: _Jv_HashCode
  - From: Per Bothner

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]