If I have a function that has a value `x` that erases to `java.lang.Object` (e.g. a parametric function with no lower bound); then it used to be safe to check for nullity and then synchronize on the object.

This is no longer safe: This can now throw `IdentityException` into your face. (it was _never_ a good idea)

In other words, a lot of old code must be reviewed.

I suspect that `-XX:DiagnoseSyncOnValueBasedClasses=2` will need to stay (with the semantics: if user tries to synchronize on identity-less object, then log a JFR event and make it a NOP, don't throw an exception)!

The current JEP text is a little too ambiguous to figure out whether that is the plan, anyways.

But that comes at a performance price, and in the end, you only really need persistent datastructures for niche applications.

Good examples are: ZFS mostly solves write amplification on SSD (it almost never overwrites memory); and snapshots are a useful feature for the end user. (but mostly your datastructures live in SRAM/DRAM which permit fast overwriting, not flash -- so that's a niche application)

Another good example is how julia uses a HAMT / persistent hash-map to implement scoped values. Scoped values are inheritable threadlocals (tasklocal; in julia parlance, virtual/green thread == task), and you need to take a snapshot on forking.

Somebody please implement that for inheritable threadlocals in java! (such that you can pass an O(1) snapshot instead of copying the hashmap on thread creation)

But that is also a niche application. It makes zero sense to use these awesome fancy persistent datastructures as default everywhere (looking at you, scala!).

Fastest way is to have your datastructure in a (virtual) register, and that works better with immutable structures (ie memory2ssa has limitations). Second fastest way is to have your datastructure allocated on the heap and mutate it. Slowest way is to have your datastructure allocated on the heap, have it immutable, copy it all the time, and then let the old copies get garbage collected. The last slowest way is exactly what many "functional" languages end up doing. (exception: Read-copy-update is often a very good strategy in multi-threading, and is relatively painless thanks to the GC)

The original post was about local variables -- and const declarations for local variables are mostly syntactic sugar, the compiler puts it into SSA form anyway (exception: const in C if you take the address of the variable and let that pointer escape).

So this is mostly the same as in every language: You need to learn what patterns allow the current compiler version to put your stuff into registers, and then use these patterns. I.e. you need to read a lot of assembly / llvm-IR until you get a feeling for it, and refresh your feelings with every compiler update. Most intuitions are similar to Rust/clang C/C++ (it's llvm, duh!), so you should be right at home if you regularly read compiler output.

Julia has excellent tooling to read the generated assembly/IR; much more convenient than java (bytecode is irrelevant, you need to read assembly or learn to read graal/C2 IR; and that is extremely inconvenient).

There will never be observational evidence on what happens on the other side of any event horizon, you'd have to cross over to the other side to see it for yourself (but you won't be able to report back your findings). There's a fun greg egan short story about that ;)

This identification happens in equations 31-34 on page 7f subsection "Cosmic Acceleration" in https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.23877

The justification looks super sketchy and hand-wavy to me, though, which I summarized as "somehow (?)".

"After inflation the event horizon would not exist."

Apparent cosmological constant viewed from the bouncing inside induces a cosmological horizon, which they identify with the black hole horizon viewed from the outside. Super elegant idea, but I don't buy that this is supposed to be true.

That's incorrect: The parent universe is not higher-dimensional, it's the same good old 3+1 as our universe.

What they propose is: Let's take our good old GR, and start with a (large, dilute) compactly supported spherically collapsing collapsing cloud of matter. During that, you get an event horizon; afterwards, this looks like a normal black hole outside, and you never see the internal evolution again ("frozen star", it's an event horizon). Inside, you have the matter cloud, then a large shell of vacuum, then the event horizon.

Quantum mechanics suggests that degeneracy pressure gives you an equation of state that looks like "dilute = dust" first, and at some point "oh no, incompressible".

They figure out that under various assumptions (and I think approximations), they get a solution where the inside bounces due to the degeneracy pressure. Viewed from inside, they identify that there should be an apparent cosmological constant, with the cosmological horizon somehow (?) corresponding to the BH horizon as viewed from the outside.

All along the article, they plug in various rough numbers, and they claim that our observed universe (with its scale, mass, age, apparent cosmological constant, etc) is compatible with this mechanism, even hand-waving at pertubations and CMB an-isotropies.

This would be super cool if it worked!

But I'm not convinced that the model truly works (internally) yet, too much hand-waving. And the matching to our real observed universe is also not yet convincing (to me). That being said, I'm out of the cosmology game for some years, and I'm a mathematician, not a physicist, so take my view with a generous helping of salt.

(I'm commenting from "reading" the arxiv preprint, but from not following all computations and references)

PS. I think that they also don't comment on stability near the bounce. But I think that regime is known to have BKL-style anisotropic instability. Now it may be that with the right parameters, the bounce occurs before these can rear their heads, and it might even be that I missed that they or one of their references argue that this is the case if you plug in numbers matched to our observed universe.

But the model would still be amazing if it all worked out, even if it was unstable.

I see a fellow enjoyer of bugs ;)

>vmap afaict only exposes push-back and pop-front for mutation

what about https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/io/trait.Write.html#ty... ?

>and critical methods aren't inlined

aren't inlined explicitly. This does not mean that they are not inlined in practice (depending on build options). Also, LLVM can look inside a noinline available method body for alias analysis :(

This is a big pain whenever one wants to do formally-UB shennenigans. I'm not a rustacean, but in julia a @noinline directive will simply tell LLVM not to inline, but won't hide the method body from LLVM's alias analysis. For that, one needs to do something similar to dynamic linking, with the implied performance impact (the equivalent of non-LTO static linking doesn't exist in julia).

  int foo(int* ptr) {
    int x = ptr[1<<16];
    *ptr += 1;
    return x + ptr[1<<16];
  }

  foo(int*):
        mov     eax, dword ptr [rdi + 262144]
        inc     dword ptr [rdi]
        add     eax, eax
        ret

Normally it would be the either the programmer's or the compiler's job to unroll a loop and then reduce dependency chain lengths.

But its nice if the renamer can do that as well.

Presumably intel have real-world data that suggest that significant real workloads can profit from this.

I wonder whether that points to specific software issues, like hypothetically "oh yeah, openjdk8 hotspot was a little too timid at loop unrolling. It won't get that JIT improvement backported, but our customers will use java8 forever. Better fix that in silicon".

In garbage-collected languages, please give me gradual / optional annotations that permit deterministic fast freeing of temps, in code that opts in.

Basically to relieve GC pressure, at some modest cost of programmer productivity.

This unfortunately makes no sense for small bump-allocated objects in languages with relocating GC, say typical java objects. But it would make a lot of sense even in the JVM for safe eager deterministic release of my 50mb giant buffers.

Another gradual lifetime example is https://cuda.juliagpu.org/stable/usage/memory/ -- GPU allocations are managed and garbage collected, but you can optionally `unsafe_free!` the most important ones, in order to reduce GC pressure (at significant safety cost, though!).

I don't see how people should glorify this with the word "algorithm". It is a trivial undergrad homework exercise, once you give the hint "use parallel reduce / fold / prefixsum".

This may involve more interesting tradeoffs if you deal with large or sparse matrices or matrix-free operators.

I was just thinking about the (0,1) case, under the mistaken assumption that one could map it to (a,b) via multiplication/addition, but you're right -- if you want (a,b) perfectly () then it's not obvious to me.

() up to inaccuracies of cosmologically negligible scale

Typical example where the badness of the floats bites you is if you do something like log(rand()), or 1/x, or more generally you map your uniform (0,1] interval via a cdf to generate a different distribution, and your mapping has a singularity at zero (this is like super standard -- e.g. how you generate exponentially distributed numbers. Or if you generate random vectors in an N-d ball, you're using a singular cdf to compute the magnitude your vector, multiplied with a normalized normal distributed N-d variable to generate the angular component).

Then the bad random floats (i.e. the non-smooth distribution close to zero) introduce real and visible bias after transformation. Afaiu the problem is well-known and serious people correct for it somewhere. If you fix the underlying problem without revisiting the now-obsolete fixes, then your results are biased again.

I'm not arguing for keeping the bad random float generation everywhere. I think it should be fixed, not just in julia but everywhere. I'm just saying that it's not a no-brainer and there is discussion and compat and communication and code audit involved in doing such a momentuous change.

Also, I'm not really up to putting in the work to champion that at the moment (arguing on the internet doesn't count ;)).

You are aware that the current age of the universe is < 10^27 nanoseconds, just for comparison?

The probability that your "perfect" code would ever get triggered is such that humankind has not built enough compute to expect to get that unlucky yet.

(you may ask: why then care about that possibility if it's dead code anyway? Because of security vulns in context of flawed RNGs. Bad underlying RNG leading to bad distributions is expected; bad underlying RNG leading to RCE is not OK. So don't ever output zero or subnormals!)

For bfloat16 the same holds; for ieee float16, well, I have no clue what we want.

I'd be very happy if this can of worms could be reopened, but am currently not active enough in julia dev to champion it.

Also somebody would need figure out something very clever for AVX2 / NEON. (AVX512 has the required instructions)

Also I can't imagine the mess with GPU -- if rand statistics differ widely between CPU and GPU that's a no-go, and I don't know what works well on which GPUs.