Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 05:55:07 -0400
Organization: supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <iv1bds$r22$1@speranza.aioe.org>
References: <d0bb9e06-16f0-4282-a37e-47e9ca9630ec@r2g2000vbj.googlegroups.com> <iuce66$2nh$1@news.albasani.net> <3d0a7034-5e01-476c-926d-1b99ab071357@x12g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3YDAuD+aHzH3oDO5mYkDPw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: WinVN 0.99.12z (x86 32bit)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:5889

On 05/07/2011 7:56 PM, Alex J wrote:
> public class Foo {
>      private int a;
>
>      private int b;

...

>
> public class Bar {
>      private int a;
>
>      private Integer b; // this is the only difference between Bar and
> Foo.

...

> using Integer instead of int results in extra 32
> bytes allocation per each object.

WTF? I'd have expected 12: 8 for the Integer's object header and 4 for 
its int field, the b fields in both Foo and Bar being 4 bytes so no 
change there.

Somewhere there's an extra 20 bytes per Bar or even per Integer being 
gobbled up.