石家庄做外贸的网站推广/肇庆网站制作软件

石家庄做外贸的网站推广,肇庆网站制作软件,做网站设计用什么软件,做app需要网站吗问题 final修饰的字段就一定是不能重新赋值吗? 基础知识常量变量是使用常量表达式初始化的原始类型或 String 类型的最终变量。变量是否为常量变量可能对类初始化、二进制兼容性和明确赋值有影响。 —Java 语言规范实验用例源码-重新赋值 import java.lang.reflect.Fie…

问题

final修饰的字段就一定是不能重新赋值吗?

基础知识

常量变量是使用常量表达式初始化的原始类型或 String 类型的最终变量。变量是否为常量变量可能对类初始化、二进制兼容性和明确赋值有影响。 —Java 语言规范

实验

用例源码-重新赋值

import java.lang.reflect.Field;public class ConstantValues {final int fieldInit = 42;final int instanceInit;final int constructor;{instanceInit = 42;}public ConstantValues() {constructor = 42;}static void set(ConstantValues p, String field) throws Exception {Field f = ConstantValues.class.getDeclaredField(field);f.setAccessible(true);f.setInt(p, 9000);}public static void main(String... args) throws Exception {ConstantValues p = new ConstantValues();set(p, "fieldInit");set(p, "instanceInit");set(p, "constructor");System.out.println(p.fieldInit + " " + p.instanceInit + " " + p.constructor);}}

执行结果

42 9000 9000

如上述执行结果所示，上面有3个被final关键字修饰的字段，其中的fieldInit字段赋有初值，其他两个没有赋初值，而在后续的通过Java反射机制对上述的3个被final修饰字段重新赋值后，执行结果惊奇的发现赋有初值的fieldInit字段的值没有被修改，其他两个没有赋初值的字段的值发生了修改，那这是因为什么呢？我们可以通过查看通过javac静态编译的字节码一查究竟，如下述代码所示：

$ javap -c -v -p ConstantValues.class
...final int fieldInit;descriptor: Iflags: ACC_FINALConstantValue: int 42  <---- oh...final int instanceInit;descriptor: Iflags: ACC_FINALfinal int constructor;descriptor: Iflags: ACC_FINAL...
public static void main(java.lang.String...) throws java.lang.Exception;descriptor: ([Ljava/lang/String;)Vflags: ACC_PUBLIC, ACC_STATIC, ACC_VARARGSCode:...41: bipush        42   // <--- Oh wow, inlined fieldInit field43: invokevirtual #18  // StringBuilder.append46: ldc           #19  // String " "48: invokevirtual #20  // StringBuilder.append51: aload_152: getfield      #3   // Field instanceInit:I55: invokevirtual #18  // StringBuilder.append58: ldc           #19  // String ""60: invokevirtual #20  // StringBuilder.append63: aload_164: getfield      #4   // Field constructor:I67: invokevirtual #18  // StringBuilder.append70: invokevirtual #21  // StringBuilder.toString73: invokevirtual #22  // System.out.println

通过查看上述字节码可以看出，被初始化赋值的fieldInit字段其实在javac静态编译时已经通过内联操作赋值了，而对于在JVM动态编译时不可能重新重写字节码，所以从此我们可以看出已经进行初始化赋值的由final关键字修饰的字段是不能修改的，而未进行初始化赋值的由final关键字修饰的字段却是可以进行修改的。理论上进行初始化赋值的由final关键字修饰的字段性能表现肯定要比没有进行初始化赋值的由final关键字修饰的字段要好，我们可以通过下面的测试用例进行进一步的验证。

用例源码-是否有final修饰的已初始化字段

@Warmup(iterations = 5, time = 1, timeUnit = TimeUnit.SECONDS)
@Measurement(iterations = 5, time = 1, timeUnit = TimeUnit.SECONDS)
@Fork(3)
@BenchmarkMode(Mode.AverageTime)
@OutputTimeUnit(TimeUnit.NANOSECONDS)
@State(Scope.Benchmark)
public class FinalInitBench {// Too lazy to actually build the example class with constructor that initializes// final fields, like we have in production code. No worries, we shall just model// this with naked fields. Right?final int fx = 42;  // Compiler complains about initialization? Okay, put 42 right here!int x  = 42;@Benchmarkpublic int testFinal() {return fx;}@Benchmarkpublic int test() {return x;}
}

执行结果

Benchmark                                  Mode  Cnt   Score    Error  Units
FinalInitBench.test                        avgt    9   1.920 ±  0.002  ns/op
FinalInitBench.test:CPI                    avgt    3   0.291 ±  0.039   #/op
FinalInitBench.test:L1-dcache-loads        avgt    3  11.136 ±  1.447   #/op
FinalInitBench.test:L1-dcache-stores       avgt    3   3.042 ±  0.327   #/op
FinalInitBench.test:cycles                 avgt    3   7.316 ±  1.272   #/op
FinalInitBench.test:instructions           avgt    3  25.178 ±  2.242   #/opFinalInitBench.testFinal                   avgt    9   1.901 ±  0.001  ns/op
FinalInitBench.testFinal:CPI               avgt    3   0.285 ±  0.004   #/op
FinalInitBench.testFinal:L1-dcache-loads   avgt    3   9.077 ±  0.085   #/op  <--- !
FinalInitBench.testFinal:L1-dcache-stores  avgt    3   4.077 ±  0.752   #/op
FinalInitBench.testFinal:cycles            avgt    3   7.142 ±  0.071   #/op
FinalInitBench.testFinal:instructions      avgt    3  25.102 ±  0.422   #/op

由上述通过perform 执行结果可以看出，都进行了初始化的两个字段，有final修饰的字段的性能要更好。那这是因为什么呢?我们可以通过汇编代码进行查证，具体如下：

# test
...
1.02%    1.02%  mov    0x10(%r10),%edx ; <--- get field x
2.50%    1.79%  nop
1.79%    1.60%  callq  CONSUME
...# testFinal
...
8.25%    8.21%  mov    $0x2a,%edx      ; <--- just use inlined "42"
1.79%    0.56%  nop
1.35%    1.19%  callq  CONSUME
...

通过上述的汇编代码可以看出，由final修饰的字段在执行汇编指令过程中并没有进行字段加载，而只是引入字节码中的内联常量，这就是性能提升的关键点。

用例源码-是否有final修饰的未初始化字段

@Warmup(iterations = 5, time = 1, timeUnit = TimeUnit.SECONDS)
@Measurement(iterations = 5, time = 1, timeUnit = TimeUnit.SECONDS)
@Fork(3)
@BenchmarkMode(Mode.AverageTime)
@OutputTimeUnit(TimeUnit.NANOSECONDS)
@State(Scope.Benchmark)
public class FinalInitCnstrBench {final int fx;int x;public FinalInitCnstrBench() {this.fx = 42;this.x = 42;}@Benchmarkpublic int testFinal() {return fx;}@Benchmarkpublic int test() {return x;}
}

执行结果

Benchmark                                            Mode  Cnt   Score    Error  Units
FinalInitCnstrBench.test                             avgt    9   1.922 ±  0.003  ns/op
FinalInitCnstrBench.test:CPI                         avgt    3   0.289 ±  0.049   #/op
FinalInitCnstrBench.test:L1-dcache-loads             avgt    3  11.171 ±  1.429   #/op
FinalInitCnstrBench.test:L1-dcache-stores            avgt    3   3.042 ±  0.031   #/op
FinalInitCnstrBench.test:cycles                      avgt    3   7.301 ±  0.445   #/op
FinalInitCnstrBench.test:instructions                avgt    3  25.235 ±  1.732   #/opFinalInitCnstrBench.testFinal                        avgt    9   1.919 ±  0.002  ns/op
FinalInitCnstrBench.testFinal:CPI                    avgt    3   0.287 ±  0.014   #/op
FinalInitCnstrBench.testFinal:L1-dcache-loads        avgt    3  11.170 ±  1.104   #/op
FinalInitCnstrBench.testFinal:L1-dcache-stores       avgt    3   3.039 ±  0.864   #/op
FinalInitCnstrBench.testFinal:cycles                 avgt    3   7.278 ±  0.394   #/op
FinalInitCnstrBench.testFinal:instructions           avgt    3  25.314 ±  0.588   #/op