On Friday, January 22, 2016, Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 22/01/16 00:01, Vitaly Davidovich wrote:
> > I think the get/setOpaque methods need a bit more explanation ("opaque"
> is
> > an odd naming choice, IMO). Specifically, it says the operations are
> done
> > in program order but have no effect on inter-thread ordering/visibility.
> > Is this spec verbiage for a full compiler-only fence?
>
> It's like C++ memory_order_relaxed, I guessed. I understand that but
> not "opaque".
I thought so too before reading opaque javadoc (no pun intended). C++
relaxed says nothing about order though, only atomicity. Opaque doesn't
mention atomicity at all.
I'm guessing opaque is compiler only fence because a method that a compiler
doesn't inline (as an example) is considered "opaque" to the compiler and
serves like a fence. Perhaps that's how opaque ended up here. At any
rate, I think it's a poor name.
>
> Andrew.
>
--
Sent from my phone
