On 12/19/2015 04:07 PM, Claes Redestad wrote: > When meticulously going through and checking each usage for odd pattern > like this I accidentally did a bit of extra cleanup, mostly addressing a > number of cases where the volatile field was being read twice. Sorry! > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8145680 > > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/8145680/webrev.01/
Looks good. > Note: when the parent bug was filed back in 2008 there was some > internal discussion about improving javac and/or the compiler to > elide these stores. That apparently led nowhere due to difficulty in > detecting various corner cases, and then the actual cleanup was > forgotten. Let's not go there this time, shall we? I agree with this sentiment; but we should also try to not to penalize assigning default values, if done for code clarity reasons. I'll submit a few HotSpot compiler RFEs for that. Thanks, -Aleksey
