On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Peter Levart <peter.lev...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Martin, > > I dont know if you saw https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8064517 (a > followup to your fix for final fields). It would be best to merge those > fixes, what do you think?
I've deliberately ignored those changes for now, so that this when this change goes in, all the jdk releases will have the same fixes applied. I agree there is more work to do. > Otherwise I think that making all lazily initialized fields volatile is not > necessary. Since you have made the Type implementations > unsafe-publication-tolerable (by making their fields final), the only fields > that need to be volatile are those that are used to lazily publish arrays. > > Am I right? You may be right, but it's risky - it's hard to tell whether every single Type implementation has exclusively final fields. We'd have to write yet another test that examines every single Class in the bootclasspath to be sure. (How does one do this in a jigsaw'ed world??) For safety's sake, I'd also like us to use CAS with our lazy-init fields. Perhaps use Atomic field updaters throughout the reflection codebase, for jdk9. I'm not (yet) claiming to be an OWNER of java/reflect. Who is the real OWNER?
