58

As a programmer I think of these as looking like "the java.lang.Object at address 1a234552" or similar for something like the s in

Object s = "hello";

Is this correct? Therefore are all references a fixed size?

5 Answers 5

67

While on many VMs the size of a reference is the native pointer size (i.e. 32 bits for a 32 bit JVM and 64 bits for a 64 bit JVM) this isn't guaranteed - and in particular HotSpot either does now or soon will support "Compressed Oops" which are 32 bit references in a 64 bit JVM. (That doesn't mean that every reference is compressed - read the linked article for more information, and there are plenty of blog posts about it too.)

In response to another comment, note that the reference itself is typically just a way of addressing the object itself. Whether it's a direct memory pointer or not, its goal is to get to the data for the object. That's basically all that really matters. If there's some "spare" bits (e.g. it's a 64-bit reference and you don't need all of that width just to represent the object's location) then the VM can use that data for other information such as its type, which may allow some optimisations. (See Tom's comment for more details.)

The object itself contains type information (probably in the form of a reference to the instance of Class, or something similar - I don't know in enough detail) as well as other necessary "stuff" in the header, before you get to the user data for the object.

9
  • 2
    Azul do put some type information into the oop. IIRC, 48 bits are used for address and 16 for type information (I might be slightly out there, particularly if some of the bits at the bottom of the 48 are always zero). I believe this allows quick checking for inlined, non-megamorphic virtual method calls. Commented Jun 11, 2009 at 14:06
  • What other memory is stored? For example: object type, casting info, polymorphic info, etc. Don't know if this are stored in the Object "header", but do you have idea of what else is stored from an object aside its references? Commented Dec 17, 2010 at 20:11
  • 2
    @santiagobasulto: It will vary by VM. Not a lot though - a reference to the class information, something to indicate its monitor (locking status etc), and possibly something used by the garbage collector.
    – Jon Skeet
    Commented Dec 17, 2010 at 20:14
  • @JonSkeet Why usually the size of a reference is equal to the word size? How does it help?
    – Geek
    Commented Aug 4, 2014 at 16:52
  • 1
    @CiroSantilli: I suspect the idea is that references will only be 8 bytes wide if the underlying CPU and OS are 64-bit, in which case you're likely to get 64-bit atomicity for free... whereas on a 32-bit CPU you'd use 32-bit references, but long and double will still be 64-bit.
    – Jon Skeet
    Commented Mar 17, 2015 at 14:17
10

It is not a part of JLS or JVM Spec, but in practice it will be an address: 32 bit on 32 bit CPU, 64 at 64.

pqism: Okay got you, because after compilation we no longer care about the declared type?

We do care. That is why Class objects are there. In fact, from the other answers you can see that we care about types in runtime enough to optimize the way we work with them by putting part of type information into reference.

4
  • 1
    32 bits doesn't seem very much if it includes the type information?
    – pqism
    Commented Jun 11, 2009 at 13:32
  • 2
    @pqism - The reference itself is probably just a pointer to the actual object. The type information would be stored with the rest of the object data. Maybe a better question would be "what is the minimum size for a java object, and what does it contain?" Commented Jun 11, 2009 at 13:38
  • Okay got you, because after compilation we no longer care about the declared type? So it really is just "something at that address".
    – pqism
    Commented Jun 11, 2009 at 13:52
  • @pquism: Look at it this way. You may allocate an array Object[10000], like the backing array of a Map. You actually don't know if all those entries will ever be used, and because of the load factor, they almost certainly won't. In that case, it would be extremely stupid to store type informations in the array sequence. It'll be better to have the type information on the individual objects themselves. Commented Mar 12, 2013 at 8:30
3

The size of an object reference depends on the JVM and machine architecture. Generally, on a 32-bit machine it is 32 bits and on a 64-bit machine it is 64 bits. However, I think that the OpenJDK 7 JVM will have support for "compressed pointers" that will save some room on 64-bit machines.

The information about the object's type is stored in the object itself; that is, if you follow the 32-bit or 64-bit pointer (or, more likely, handle) to the object, you would find another pointer to a Class instance that describes the type, as well as the data fields of the object.

3

I just want to add my 0.02$ that on 64-bit platforms, the reference can have 32 bits or 64 bits.

It can be of a 32 bit size when Compressed OOP is enabled (on by default).

The other way it can be of 32 bits is when the heap is smaller then 4 GB and it fits in the initial virtual space of 4 GB. For example:

0                            4GB
..................................................
|   < your heap fits here>    |

In such a case, the source code says that this is UnscaledNarrowOop type of heap alignment and for that type, the the references have 32 bits.

2

Most people tend to see a reference to an object as a C-language-like-memory-pointer. While this is not technically correct, most implementations do implement it as a pointer. In case of compressed object pointers for example, the JVM stores only bits 3 to 34 of the 64-bit pointer on a 64 bit platform. Other implementations could also choose to use a different scheme: the reference could be an index into an pointer array containing all objects.

2
  • Do you mean to say that the JLS does not forbid other ways of storing object references (besides the C-language-like-memory-pointer way) ?
    – Pacerier
    Commented Jan 28, 2012 at 23:03
  • @Pacerier it's not the JLS, but JVMS, but otherwise - yes, the specification does not forbid that.
    – Eugene
    Commented Jun 30, 2020 at 18:36