• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other Pie Elite all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Paul Clapham
  • Ron McLeod
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Tim Cooke
Sheriffs:
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • paul wheaton
  • Henry Wong
Saloon Keepers:
  • Tim Moores
  • Tim Holloway
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Carey Brown
  • Frits Walraven
Bartenders:
  • Piet Souris
  • Himai Minh

GC

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 325
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Assume that the following lines of code compiles fine.

How many objects are eligible for gc after this code is executed.
is it 4 or 3??
please explain?
[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: Murthy Ram ]
 
Author & Gold Digger
Posts: 7617
6
IntelliJ IDE Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Looking at the code below we can see that 5 objects are gced.

Output:
finalizing 0
finalizing 1
finalizing 2
finalizing 3
finalizing 4
The reason is because the objects are in the scope of the for loop. Once an iteration is over, the created object is out of scope and can thus be garbage collected.
 
manasa teja
Ranch Hand
Posts: 325
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
thanks Val!!!
I have not given importance to the scope of the variable...
I got it now..
 
Valentin Crettaz
Author & Gold Digger
Posts: 7617
6
IntelliJ IDE Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
One more thing:
be aware that if instead of having
String s = new String();
you have
String s = "someliteral";
no objects are garbage collected because string literals are automatically interned in the private string pool.
 
manasa teja
Ranch Hand
Posts: 325
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Yes Val!!! Thanks for information!!


you have
String s = "someliteral";
no objects are garbage collected because string literals are automatically interned in the private string pool.

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1056
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Also, while that program with a finalize() method will probably produce the result you give, there is no guarantee of it. The garbage collector may or may not run, and may or may not decide to collect those particular objects.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1055
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Try this code from Mughal. It takes 2 arguments: the number of objects and the size. If you make the numbers high enough, you should see some of the objects garbage collected ("Bye!").
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2120
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Does Mughal justify the call super.finalize() within a class that extends from Object? I mean finalize in Object does nothing.
 
Ron Newman
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1056
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Since garbage collection runs in a separate thread, I'd be a little concerned abuot synchronization. Declaring the "population" variable volatile might be sufficient to allay that concern.
 
Anthony Villanueva
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1055
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator


Does Mughal justify the call super.finalize() within a class that extends from Object?


No, he didn't, although it can be argued that he was demonstrating finalizer chaining.


I mean finalize in Object does nothing.


Agreed. Force of habit, I guess
Anyway, it's on page 253 for those interested.
[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: Anthony Villanueva ]
 
Valentin Crettaz
Author & Gold Digger
Posts: 7617
6
IntelliJ IDE Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Also, while that program with a finalize() method will probably produce the result you give, there is no guarantee of it. -- Ron Newman
That goes without saying That was just for demonstration purposes.
 
Jose Botella
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2120
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Funny, because Bruce Eckel also has an example in page 333, in Thinking in Java, which calls the finalize method of Object. However the program runs the same without it. For demonstrating finalization chaining only the calls to super.finalize from the rest of the subclasses are needed.
-------------
Placing volatile doesn't affect the behaviour of the program.
There is some populations count left at the end of the program. But this has nothing to with a threading problem. It is due to the g.c. not ending its job before the program terminates. Calling System.gc() after the for loop zeroes the population count.
The API for Object.finalize doesn't guarantee which thread will invoke finalize.
However using jdb to see the threads of the main method of a simple program yields:


main[1] where all
CompileThread0:
Signal Dispatcher:
Finalizer:
[1] java.lang.Object.wait (native method)
[2] java.lang.ref.ReferenceQueue.remove (ReferenceQueue.java:111)
[3] java.lang.ref.ReferenceQueue.remove (ReferenceQueue.java:127)
[4] java.lang.ref.Finalizer$FinalizerThread.run (Finalizer.java:159)
Reference Handler:
[1] java.lang.Object.wait (native method)
[2] java.lang.Object.wait (Object.java:426)
[3] java.lang.ref.Reference$ReferenceHandler.run (Reference.java:113)
main:
[1] Test2.main (Test2.java:3)
main[1] cont


Going to the source code for the class Finalizer, the thread FinalizerThread is loaded in a static block, given the max. priority minus two, set to deamon and started.
 
We noticed he had no friends. So we gave him this tiny ad:
free, earth-friendly heat - a kickstarter for putting coin in your pocket while saving the earth
https://coderanch.com/t/751654/free-earth-friendly-heat-kickstarter
reply
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic