[SOLVED] Does type erasure of Java Generics cause full type casting?

Issue

I know that when a Java compiler compiles a generic type, it performs Type erasure and removes all references to the generic from the code and my ArrayList<Cheesecake> becomes just an ArrayList.

The question that I don’t have a clear answer for is, whether this lack of a type (and therefore mandatory Type-casting) causes slow down. In order words, if I am using the standard Java compiler and the standard JVM 1.7 from Oracle:

• Does the bytecode include a type cast?
• If yes, does it include a run-time check to check if its the correct type?
• Does the conversion itself take a non-trivial amount of time?
• Would making my own CheesecakeList class that looks identical to ArrayList, just with all of the Objects turned to Cheesecakes would I gain anything (again just a hypothetical and I am not interested in any side effects of having a larger binary because of more classes nor the duplication in my code).

I am not interested in any other problems that type erasure causes, just a simple answer from someone who understand the JVM better than I do.

I am most interested in the cost in this example:

List<Cheesecake> list = new ArrayList<Cheesecake>();
for (int i = 0; i < list.size(); i++)
{
   // I know this gets converted to ((Cheesecake)list.get(i)).at(me)
   list.get(i).eat(me); 
}

Is that cast inside the loop expensive and/or significant as compared to:

CheesecakeList list = new CheesecakeList();
for (int i = 0; i < list.size(); i++)
{
   //where the return of list.get() is a Cheesecake, therefore there is no casting.
   list.get(i).eat(me); 
}

DISCLAIMER: This is mostly a question of academic curiosity. I really doubt that there is any significant performance issues with the type cast and removing the need for them wouldn’t be even one of the top 5 things I would do if I found a performance bug in my code. If you are reading this because you DO have a performance issue do yourself a favor and start up a profiler and find out where the bottle neck is. If you really believe its in the type-casting, only then should you try and optimize it somehow.

Solution

The short story: Yes, there is a type check. Here’s the proof –

Given the following classes:

// Let's define a generic class.
public class Cell<T> {
  public void set(T t) { this.t = t; }
  public T get() { return t; }
  
  private T t;
}

public class A {

  static Cell<String> cell = new Cell<String>();  // Instantiate it.
  
  public static void main(String[] args) {
    // Now, let's use it.
    cell.set("a");
    String s = cell.get(); 
    System.out.println(s);
  }  
}

The bytecode that A.main() is compiled into (decompiled via javap -c A.class) is as follows:

public static void main(java.lang.String[]);
Code:
   0: getstatic     #20                 // Field cell:Lp2/Cell;
   3: ldc           #22                 // String a
   5: invokevirtual #24                 // Method p2/Cell.set:(Ljava/lang/Object;)V
   8: getstatic     #20                 // Field cell:Lp2/Cell;
  11: invokevirtual #30                 // Method p2/Cell.get:()Ljava/lang/Object;
  14: checkcast     #34                 // class java/lang/String
  17: astore_1      
  18: getstatic     #36                 // Field java/lang/System.out:Ljava/io/PrintStream;
  21: aload_1       
  22: invokevirtual #42                 // Method java/io/PrintStream.println:(Ljava/lang/String;)V
  25: return        
}

As you can in offset 14, the result of cell.get() is type checked to verify that is indeed a string:

 14: checkcast     #34                 // class java/lang/String

This does incur some runtime penalty. However, as the JVM is pretty well optimized, the effect of this is likely to be minimal.

The longer story:

How would you go about implementing such a CheesecakeList class? Wouldn’t this class define an array to hold the elements? Be advised that every assignment to an array incurs a hidden type check. So you won’t gain as much as you think (although it is likely that your program will perform more read operations than write operations so a Cheesecake[] array will give you something).

Bottom line: don’t optimize prematurely.

A final comment. People often think that type erasure means that Cell<String> is compiled into Cell<Object>. That’s not true. The erasure is applied only to the definition of the generic class/method. It is not applied to the usage sites of these classes/methods.

In other words, the class Cell<T> is compiled as if it were written as Cell<Object>. If T has an upper bound (say Number) then it is compiled into Cell<Number>. In other places in the code, typically variables/parameters whose type is an instantiation of the Cell class (such as Cell<String> myCell), the erasure is not applied. The fact that myCell is of type Cell<String> is kept in the classfile. This allows the compiler to type check the program correctly.

Answered By – Itay Maman

Answer Checked By – David Goodson (BugsFixing Volunteer)