Skip to content
Permalink
master
Switch branches/tags
Go to file
@vincentlauvlwj
Latest commit 52e66ce May 26, 2021 History
Correct the conclusion text in the type mapping section - inline classes over not-null reference types.
4 contributors

Users who have contributed to this file

@zarechenskiy @ilmirus @vincentlauvlwj @LouisCAD

Inline classes

  • Type: Design proposal
  • Author: Mikhail Zarechenskiy
  • Contributors: Andrey Breslav, Denis Zharkov, Dmitry Petrov, Ilya Gorbunov, Roman Elizarov, Stanislav Erokhin, Ilmir Usmanov
  • Status: Stable since 1.5.0
  • Prototype: Implemented in Kotlin 1.2.30

Discussion of this proposal is held in this issue.

Summary

Currently, there is no performant way to create wrapper for a value of a corresponding type. The only way is to create a usual class, but the use of such classes would require additional heap allocations, which can be critical for many use cases.

We propose to support identityless inline classes that would allow to introduce wrappers for values without additional overhead related to additional heap allocations.

Inline classes are a subset of value-based classes, which are classes without identity and hold values only.

Inline classes behave like primitive types. Like primitive types, passing inline class to function or returning from it does not require a wrapper with a few exceptions, described in the relevant section.

Motivation / use cases

Inline classes allow creating wrappers for a value of a certain type and such wrappers would be fully inlined. This is similar to type aliases but inline classes are not assignment-compatible with the corresponding underlying types.

Use cases:

  • Unsigned types
@JvmInline
value class UInt(private val value: Int) { ... }
@JvmInline
value class UShort(private val value: Short) { ... }
@JvmInline
value class UByte(private val value: Byte) { ... }
@JvmInline
value class ULong(private val value: Long) { ... }
  • Native types like size_t for Kotlin/Native

  • Inline enum classes

    Example:

    @JvmInline
    enum class Foo(val x: Int) {
        A(0), B(1);
        
        fun example() { ... }
    }

    The constructor's arguments should be constant values and the values should be different for different entries.

  • Units of measurement

  • Result type (aka Try monad) KT-18608

  • Inline property delegates

class A {
    var something by InlinedDelegate(Foo()) // no actual instantiation of `InlinedDelegate`
}


@JvmInline
value class InlinedDelegate<T>(var node: T) {
    operator fun setValue(thisRef: A, property: KProperty<*>, value: T) {
        if (node !== value) {
            thisRef.notify(node, value)
        }
        node = value
    }

    operator fun getValue(thisRef: A, property: KProperty<*>): T {
        return node
    }
}
  • Inline wrappers

    • Typed wrappers
    @JvmInline
    value class Name(private val s: String)
    @JvmInline
    value class Password(private val s: String)
    
    fun foo() {
        var n = Name("n") // no actual instantiation, on JVM type of `n` is String
        val p = Password("p")
        n = "other" // type mismatch error
        n = p // type mismatch error
    }
    • API refinement
    // Java
    public class Foo {
        public Object[] objects() { ... }
    }
    
    // Kotlin
    @JvmInline
    value class RefinedFoo(val f: Foo) {
        inline fun <T> array(): Array<T> = f.objects() as Array<T>
    }
    

Description

Inline classes are declared using soft keyword value and must have a single property:

value class Foo(val i: Int)

In Kotlin/JVM, however, they should be annotated with additional @JvmInline annotation:

@JvmInline
value class Foo(val i: Int)

In Kotlin/Native and Kotlin/JS, because of the closed-world model, value-based classes with single read-only property are inline classes. In Kotlin/JVM we require the annotation for inline classes, since we are going to support value-based classes, which are a superset of inline classes, and they are binary incompatible with inline classes. Thus, adding and removing the annotation will be a breaking change.

The property i defines type of the underlying runtime representation for inline class Foo, while at compile time type will be Foo.

From language point of view, inline classes can be considered as restricted classes, they can declare various members, operators, have generics.

Example:

@JvmInline
value class Name(val s: String) : Comparable<Name> {
    override fun compareTo(other: Name): Int = s.compareTo(other.s)
    
    fun greet() {
        println("Hello, $s")
    }
}    

fun greet() {
    val name = Name("Kotlin") // there is no actual instantiation of class `Name`
    name.greet() // method `greet` is called as a static method
}

Current limitations

Currently, inline classes must satisfy the following requirements:

  • Inline class must have a primary constructor with a single value parameter
  • Inline class must have a single read-only (val) property as an underlying value, which is defined in primary constructor
  • Underlying value cannot be of the same type that is containing inline class
  • Inline class with undefined (recursively defined) generics, e.g. generics with an upper bound equal to the class, is prohibited
    @JvmInline
    value class A<T : A<T>>(val x: T) // error
  • Inline class must be final
  • Inline class can implement only interfaces
  • Inline class cannot have backing fields
    • Hence, it follows that inline class can have only simple computable properties (no lateinit/delegated properties)
  • Inline class must be a toplevel or a nested class. Local and inner inline classes are not allowed.
  • Inline classes cannot have var properties with backing fields.

Other restrictions

The following restrictions are related to the usages of inline classes:

  • Referential equality (===) is prohibited for all value-based classes, including inline classes
  • vararg of inline class type is prohibited
@JvmInline
value class Foo(val s: String)

fun test(vararg foos: Foo) { ... } // should be an error  

Java interoperability

Each inline class has its own wrapper that is represented as a usual class on JVM. This wrapper is needed to box values of inline class types and use it where it's impossible to use unboxed values. Rules for boxing are pretty the same as for primitive types and can be formulated as follows: inline class is boxed when it is used as another type. Unboxed inline class is used when value is statically known to be inline class.

Examples:

interface I

@JvmInline
value class Foo(val i: Int) : I

fun asInline(f: Foo) {}
fun <T> asGeneric(x: T) {}
fun asInterface(i: I) {}
fun asNullable(i: Foo?) {}

fun <T> id(x: T): T = x

fun test(f: Foo) {
    asInline(f)
    asGeneric(f) // boxing
    asInterface(f) // boxing
    asNullable(f) // boxing
    
    val c = id(f) // boxing/unboxing, c is unboxed
}

Since boxing doesn't have side effects as is, it's possible to reuse various optimizations that are done for primitive types to avoid extra boxing/unboxing operations.

Type mapping on JVM (without mangling)

Top-level types

Inline classes over primitive types

Consider the following example:

@JvmInline
value class ICPrimitive(val x: Int)

fun foo(i: ICPrimitive) {}
fun bar(i: ICPrimitive?) {}

Function foo can take only values of the underlying type of ICPrimitive type, which is Int, therefore, such inline class types are mapped to the underlying types. Here, ICPrimitive will be mapped to primitive int.

Function bar can also take null literal, which is not of type int, therefore, such inline class types are mapped to the reference type. Here, ICPrimitive? will be mapped to LICPrimitive;.

So,

  • not-null inline class types over primitive types are mapped directly to the underlying primitive type
  • nullable inline class types over primitive types are mapped to the boxed reference type (wrapper of an inline class)
Inline classes over not-null reference types

Now, let's consider an inline class over some reference type:

@JvmInline
value class ICReference(val s: String)

fun foo(i: ICReference) {}
fun bar(i: ICReference?) {}

With the type ICReference rationale is the same, it can't hold nulls, so this type will be mapped to String. Next, function bar can hold null values, but note that underlying type of ICReference is a reference type String, which can hold null values on JVM and can be safely used as a mapped type.

So,

  • not-null inline class types over reference types are mapped directly to the underlying reference type
  • nullable inline class types over not-null reference types are mapped directly to the underlying reference type
Inline classes over nullable reference types

Now, what if inline class is declared over some nullable reference type?

@JvmInline
value class ICNullable(val s: String?)

fun foo(i: ICNullable) {}
fun bar(i: ICNullable?) {}

ICNullable can't hold nulls, so it can be safely mapped to String on JVM. ICNullable? can hold nulls and also inline classes over nulls: ICNullable(null). It's important to distinguish such values:

fun baz(a: ICNullable?, b: ICNullable?) {
    if (a === b) { ... }
}

fun test() {
    baz(ICNullable(null), null)
}

If we map ICNullable? to String as in the previous example, it will not be possible to distinguish ICNullable(null) from null as on JVM they will be represented by value null, therefore ICNullable? should be mapped to the LICNullable;

So,

  • not-null inline class types over nullable reference types are mapped directly to the underlying reference type
  • nullable inline class types over nullable reference types are mapped to the boxed reference type (wrapper of an inline class)
Inline classes over other inline classes

Besides these cases, inline class can also be declared over some other inline class:

@JvmInline
value class IC2(val i: IC)
@JvmInline
value class IC2Nullable(val i: IC?)

Mapping rules for IC2Nullable are simple:

  • IC2Nullable -> mapped type of IC?
  • IC2Nullable? -> LICNullable;

Mapping rules for IC2 are the following:

  • IC2 -> mapped type of IC
  • IC2? ->
    • fully mapped type of IC if it's a non-null reference type
    • LIC2; if fully mapped type of IC can hold nulls or it's a primitive type

Rationale for these rules is the same as in the previous steps: for nullable types, it should be possible to hold null and distinguish nulls from inline classes over nulls.

Example, let's consider the following hierarchy of inline classes:

@JvmInline
value class IC1(val s: String)
@JvmInline
value class IC2(val ic1: IC1?)
@JvmInline
value class IC3(val ic2: IC2)

fun foo(i: IC3) {}
fun bar(i: IC3?) {} 

Here IC3 will be mapped to the type String, IC3? will be mapped to LIC3; as it should be possible to distinguish null from IC3(IC2(null)). But if IC2 was declared as inline class IC2(val ic1: IC1), then IC3 would be mapped to String.

Generic types

If inline class type is used in generic position, then its boxed type will be used:

// Kotlin: sample.kt

@JvmInline
value class Name(val s: String)

fun generic(names: List<Name>) {} // generic signature will have `List<Name>` as for parameters type
fun simple(): Name = Name("Kt")

// Java
class Test {
    void test() {
        String name = SampleKt.simple();
        List<Name> ls = Samplekt.generic(); // from Java POV it's List<Name>, not List<String>
    }
}

This is needed to preserve information about inline classes at runtime.

Generic inline class mapping

Consider the following sample:

@JvmInline
value class Generic<T>(val x: T)

fun foo(g: Generic<Int>) {}

Now, type Generic<Int> can be mapped either to java.lang.Integer, java.lang.Object or to primitive int.

Same question arises with arrays:

@JvmInline
value class GenericArray<T>(val y: Array<T>)

fun foo(g: GenericArray<Int>) {} // `g` has type `Integer[]` or `Object[]`?

Therefore, because of this ambiguity, such cases are going to be forbidden in the first version of inline classes.

  • Sidenote: maybe it's worth to consider inline classes with reified generics:
    @JvmInline
    value class Reified<reified T>(val x: T)
    
    fun foo(a: Reified<Int>, b: Reified<String>) // a has type `Int`, b has type `String`

Generic inline classes with underlying value not of type that defined by type parameter or generic array are mapped as usual generics:

@JvmInline
value class AsList<T>(val ls: List<T>)

fun foo(param: AsList<String>) {}

In JVM signature param will have type java.util.List, but in generic signature it will be java.util.List<java.lang.String>

Reflection

Note: this functionality is added in Kotlin 1.3.20.

Class literals and javaClass property are available for expressions of inline class types. In both cases resulting KClass or java.lang.Class object will represent wrapper for used inline class:

@JvmInline
value class Duration(val seconds: Int)

fun test(duration: Duration) {
    // the following expressions are translated into class objects for "Duration" class
    Duration::class
    duration::class
    duration.javaClass
    
    assertEquals(duration::class.toString(), "class Duration")
    assertEquals(Duration::class.simpleName, "Duration")  
}

Also, it's possible to use call/callBy for functions that have inline class types in their signatures:

@JvmInline
value class S(val value: String) {
    operator fun plus(other: S): S = S(this.value + other.value)
}

class C {
    private var member: S = S("")
    
    fun memberFun(x: S, y: String): S = x + S(y)

    fun unboundRef() = C::member.apply { isAccessible = true }
    fun boundRef() = this::member.apply { isAccessible = true }
}

private var topLevel: S = S("")

fun test() {
    val c = C()
    
    assertEquals(S("ab"), C::memberFun.call(C(), S("a"), "b"))
    
    assertEquals(Unit, c.unboundRef().setter.call(c, S("ab")))
    assertEquals(S("ab"), c.unboundRef().call(c))
    assertEquals(S("ab"), c.unboundRef().getter.call(c))

    assertEquals(Unit, c.boundRef().setter.call(S("cd")))
    assertEquals(S("cd"), c.boundRef().call())
    assertEquals(S("cd"), c.boundRef().getter.call())

    val topLevel = ::topLevel.apply { isAccessible = true }
    assertEquals(Unit, topLevel.setter.call(S("ef")))
    assertEquals(S("ef"), topLevel.call())
    assertEquals(S("ef"), topLevel.getter.call())
}

Methods from kotlin.Any

Inline classes are indirectly inherited from Any, i.e. they can be assigned to a value of type Any but only through boxing. This is the same as for primitives, for example, Int doesn't inherit Any but its boxed version (java.lang.Object) does.

Methods from Any (toString, hashCode, equals) can be useful for a user-defined inline classes and therefore should be customizable. Methods toString and hashCode can be overridden as usual methods from Any. For method equals we're going to introduce new operator that represents "typed" equals to avoid boxing for inline classes:

@JvmInline
value class Foo(val s: String) {
    operator fun equals(other: Foo): Boolean { ... }
}

Compiler will generate original equals method that is delegated to the typed version.

By default, compiler will automatically generate equals, hashCode and toString same as for data classes.

Arrays of inline class values

Consider the following inline class:

@JvmInline
value class Foo(val x: Int)

To represent array of unboxed values of Foo we propose using new inline class FooArray over an array:

@JvmInline
value class FooArray(private val storage: IntArray): Collection<Foo> {
    operator fun get(index: Int): UInt = Foo(storage[index])
    ...
}

While Array<Foo> will represent array of boxed values:

// jvm signature: test([I[LFoo;)V
fun test(a: FooArray, b: Array<Foo>) {} 

This is similar how one works with arrays of primitive types such as IntArray/ByteArray, it allows explicitly differ array of unboxed values from array of boxed values.

This decision doesn't allow declaring vararg parameters that represent array of unboxed inline class values, because it's impossible to associate vararg of inline class type with the corresponding array type. For example, without additional information it's impossible to match vararg v: Foo with FooArray. Therefore, we are going to prohibit vararg parameters for now.

Other possible options:

  • Treat Array<Foo> as array of unboxed values by default

    Pros:

    • There is no need to define separate class to introduce array of inline class type
    • It's possible to allow vararg parameters

    Cons:

    • Array<Foo> can implicitly represent array of unboxed and array of boxed values:
    // Java
    class JClass {
        public static void bar(Foo[] f) {}
    }

    From Kotlin point of view, function bar can take only Array<Foo>

    • Not clear semantics for generic arrays:
    fun <T> genericArray(a: Array<T>) {}
    
    fun test(foos: Array<Foo>) {
      genericArray(foos) // conversion for each element? 
    }
  • Treat Array<Foo> as array of boxed values and introduce specialized VArray class with the following rules:

    • VArray<Foo> represents array of unboxed values
    • VArray<Foo?> or VArray<T> for type paramter T is an error
    • (optionally) VArray<Int> represents array of primitives

    Pros:

    • There is no need to define separate class to introduce array of inline class type
    • It's possible to allow vararg parameters
    • Explicit representation for arrays of boxed/unboxed values

    Cons:

    • Complicated implementation and overall design

Expect/Actual inline classes

To declare expect inline class one can use expect modifier:

expect value class Foo(val prop: String)

Note that we allow to declare property with backing field (prop here) for expect inline class, which is different for usual classes. Also, since each inline class must have exactly one value parameter we can relax rules for actual inline classes:

// common module
expect value class Foo(val prop: String)

// platform-specific module
@JvmInline
actual value class Foo(val prop: String)

For actual inline classes we don't require to write actual modifier on primary constructor and value parameter.

Currently, expect value class requires actual value and vice versa.

Overloads, private constructors and initialization blocks

Let's consider several most important issues that appear in the current implementation.

Overloads

Signatures with inline classes that are erased to the same type on the same position will be conflicting:

@JvmInline
value class UInt(val u: Int)

// Conflicting overloads
fun compute(i: Int) { ... }
fun compute(u: UInt) { ... }

@JvmInline
value class Login(val s: String)
@JvmInline
value class UserName(val s: String)

// Conflicting overloads
fun foo(x: Login) {}
fun foo(x: UserName) {}

One could use JvmName to disambiguate functions, but this looks verbose and confusing. Inline class types are normal types and we'd like to think about inline classes as about usual classes with several restrictions, it allows thinking less about implementation details.

Non-public constructors and initialization blocks

Before 1.4.30, inline classes required having a public primary constructor without init blocks in order to have clear initialization semantics. This is needed because of values that can come from Java:

// Kotlin
@JvmInline
value class Foo(val x: Int) 

fun kotlinFun(f: Foo) {}

// Java:

static void test() {
    kotlinFun(42); // constructor or initialization block wasn't called
}

As a result, it was impossible to encapsulate underlying value or create an inline class that will represent some constrained values:

@JvmInline
value class Negative(val x: Int) {
    init {
        require(x < 0) { ... }
    }
}

Note that these problems were fixed with mangling of constructors and functions, accepting inline classes. Thus, since 1.4.30 we lift the restrictions.

Mangling

To mitigate described problems, we propose introducing mangling for declarations that have top-level inline class types in their signatures. Example:

@JvmInline
value class UInt(val x: Int)

fun compute(x: UInt) {}
fun compute(x: Int) {}

We'll compile function compute(UInt) to compile-<hash>(Int), where <hash> is a mangling suffix for the signature. Now it will not possible to call this function from Java because - is an illegal symbol there, but from Kotlin point of view it's a usual function with the name compute.

As these functions are accessible only from Kotlin, the problem about non-public primary constructors and init blocks becomes easier.

Mangling rules

Simple functions

Simple functions with inline class type parameters are mangled as <name>-<hash>, where <name> is the original function name, and <hash> is a mangling suffix for the signature. Mangling suffix can contain upper case and lower case Latin letters, digits, _ and -. This scheme applies to property getters and setters as well.

The suffix calculating algorithm has changed in 1.4.30.

In 1.4.30 it is the following:

  1. Collect function signature, concatenating parameter string representations, where

    1.1. Inline class is represented by its ASM-like descriptor, for example UInt's descriptor is Lkotlin/UInt;

    1.2. If the inline class is nullable, it has '?' before ';' in the descriptor, to distinguish nullable from not-null inline classes, since change in nullability should be incompatible change, just like primitives, so, UInt? turns into Lkotlin/UInt?;

    1.3. Everything else is replaced with "_".

    1.4. The signature is wrapped in parentheses, so foo(UInt, Int)'s signature is (Lkotlin/UInt;_)

    1.5. If the function is a method, returning inline class, ":$descriptor" is appended

  2. The signature's hash is computed.

In a Kotlin-like pseudocode the algorithm looks like

// parameters contain all value parameters, including receiver
fun calculateSuffix(parameters: List<ValueParameter>): String =
   "-" + md5base64(collectSignature(parameters))

fun collectSignature(parameters: List<ValueParameter>): String =
   parameters.joinToString { it.type.getSignatureElement() }

fun Type.getSignatureElement() =
   """
   L${it.type.erasedUpperBound()}${
    if (it.isInlineClass() && it.type.isNullable()) "?" else ""
   };
   """

// Take a String, compute its MD5, take first 6 bytes of the result,
// and represents it as base64 using RFC4648_URLSAFE encoder without
// padding (effectively using 'a'..'z', 'A'..'Z', '0'..'9', '-', and '_').
fun md5base64(signature: String): String =
   base64(md5(signature.toByteArray()).copyOfRange(0, 5))

where erasedUpperBound is

fun Type.erasedUpperBound() =
  if (this is Class)
    if (this.isInlineClass()) fqName else "_"
  else (this as TypeParameter).erasedUpperBound()

fun TypeParameter.erasedUpperBound() =
  superTypes.find { it !is Interface && it !is Annotation }
    ?: superTypes.first().erasedUpperBound()

Before 1.4.30, however, the algorithm was different:

  1. Collect function signature, joining parameter representations to string with a comma with a space as a delimiter, where

    1.1. Parameter is represented by its ASM-like descriptor for its Kotlin class. For example, if the parameter type is Int, its representation is Lkotlin/Int;

    1.2. If the parameter is nullable, it has '?' before ';' in the descriptor, so, Int? is turned into Lkotlin/Int?;

    1.4. The signature is wrapped in parentheses, so foo(UInt, Int)'s signature is (Lkotlin/UInt;, Lkotlin/Int;)

    1.5. If the function is a method, returning inline class, ":$descriptor" is appended

  2. The signature's hash is computed.

By default, the compiler uses the new scheme when generating mangled functions. This, however, leads to ABI changes, so the old compilers would not be able to compile against newly compiled bytecode. One can use -Xuse-14-inline-classes-mangling-scheme compiler flag to force the compiler to use 1.4.0 mangling scheme and preserve binary compatibility.

The compiler, however, is able to link against both new and old mangling schemes: if it does not find a function with new mangled suffix it uses the old one.

1.4.30 standard library uses the old scheme to preserve binary compatibility.

Note, that functions without inline class parameter, except Result, and top-level functions, returning Result, are not mangled. We do not mangle functions with Result parameters to preserve binary compatibility, since Result is a stable inline class since 1.3 and changes in mangling algorithm would break binary compatibility. However, we did not allow returning Result from functions until 1.5.0, so mangling methods returning Result is not a problem. We mangle methods only, since we do not mangle top-level functions, returning inline classes.

Constructors

Constructors with inline class type parameters are marked as private, and have a public synthetic accessor with additional marker parameter. Note that unlike mangled simple functions, hidden constructors can clash, but we consider that a less important issue than type safety.

Functions inside inline class

Each function inside inline class is mangled. By default, if such function doesn't have a parameter of inline class type, then it will get suffix -impl, otherwise, it will be mangled as a simple function with inline class type parameters.

Overridden functions inside inline class

Overridden functions inside inline class are mangled same as usual ones, but compiler we'll also generate bridge to override function from interface.

Inline classes ABI (JVM)

Let's consider the following inline class:

interface Base {
    fun base(s: String): Int
}

@JvmInline
value class IC(val u: Int) : Base {
    fun simple(y: String) {}
    fun icInParameter(ic: IC, y: String) {}
    
    val simpleProperty get() = 42
    val propertyIC get() = IC(42)
    var mutablePropertyIC: IC
            get() = IC(42)
            set(value) {}
    
    override fun base(s: String): Int = 0
    override fun toString(): String = "IC = $u"
}

On JVM this inline class will have next declarations:

public final class IC implements Base {
    // Underlying field
    private final I u

    // Members

    public base(Ljava/lang/String;)I
    public toString()Ljava/lang/String;

    // Auto generated methods from Any
    public equals(Ljava/lang/Object;)Z
    public hashCode()I

    // Synthetic constructor to hide it from Java
    private synthetic <init>(I)V

    // function to create and initialize value for `IC` class
    public static constructor-impl(I)I

    // fun simple(y: String) {}
    public final static simple-impl(ILjava/lang/String;)V

    // fun icInParameter(ic: IC, y: String) {}
    public final static icInParameter-8euKKQA(IILjava/lang/String;)V

    // val simpleProperty: Int
    public final static getSimpleProperty-impl(I)I

    // val propertyIC: IC
    public final static getPropertyIC-impl(I)I

    // getter of var mutablePropertyIC: IC
    public final static getMutablePropertyIC-impl(I)I

    // setter of var mutablePropertyIC: IC
    public final static setMutablePropertyIC-kVEzI7o(II)V

    // override fun base(s: String): Int 
    public static base-impl(ILjava/lang/String;)I

    // override fun toString(): String
    public static toString-impl(I)Ljava/lang/String;

    // Methods to box/unbox value of inline class type
    public final static synthetic box-impl(I)Lorg/jetbrains/kotlin/resolve/IC;
    public final synthetic unbox-impl()I

    // Static versions of auto-generated methods from Any
    public static hashCode-impl(I)I
    public static equals-impl(ILjava/lang/Object;)Z

    // Reserved method for specialized equals to avoid boxing
    public final static equals-impl0(II)Z 
}

Note that member-constructor (<init>) is synthetic, this is needed because with the addition of init blocks it will not evaluate them, they will be evaluated in constructor-impl. Therefore we should hide it to avoid creating non-initialized values from Java. To make it more clear, consider the following situation:

@JvmInline
value class WithInit(val u: Int) {
    init { ... }
}

fun foo(): List<WithInit> {
    // call `constructor-impl` and evaluate `init` block
    val u = WithInit(0)
     
    // call `box-impl` and constructor (`init`), DO NOT evaluate `init` block again 
    return listOf(u)  
}

Note that declarations that have inline class types in parameters not on top-level will not be mangled:

@JvmInline
value class IC(val u: Int)

fun foo(ls: List<IC>) {}

Function foo will have name foo in the bytecode.

To disable mangling, one can use @JvmName annotation.