OK, I worked in some wording for comparison with volatiles. I believe you when you say that the semantics of the corresponding C++ fences are slightly different, but it's rather subtle - can we say anything more than "closely related to"?
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Aleksey Shipilev <aleksey.shipi...@oracle.com> wrote: > Hi Martin, > > On 11/24/2014 11:56 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote: >> Review carefully - I am trying to learn about fences by explaining them! >> I have borrowed some wording from my reviewers! >> >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8065804 >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk9/fence-intrinsics/ > > I think "implies the effect of C++11" is too strong wording. "related" > might be more appropriate. > > See also comments here for connection with "volatiles": > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8038978 > > Take note the Hans' correction that fences generally imply more than > volatile load/store, but since you are listing the related things in the > docs, I think the "native" Java example is good to have. > > -Aleksey. > >
