> On Nov 15, 2016, at 4:41 AM, Zoltán Majó <zoltan.m...@oracle.com> wrote: > > > I think the sentence in webrev.01 > > (1) "If a registered referenceceases to be strongly reachable itself, then it > may never be enqueued." > > is sufficient. I think we want to make a statement only about what happens > when a reference ceases to be strongly reachable (i.e., that in that case we > can't make a statement about that reference being enqueued or not). >
When a reference becomes unreachable (not by examining the source code but the actual state of the VM at runtime), it will never be enqueued. > The sentence you suggested > > (2) "A Java virtual machine may implement optimization that could affects > when objects become unreachable." > > adds too much ambiguity as it leaves room for speculation about what > "optimization" might be. > > For example, statement (2) can be possibly (mis-)read as the JVM making > references unreachable *earlier* than what a programmer may think -- based on > the source code.(That is clearly not the case: References are available at > least until the latest program point where they are used, otherwise the > program would encounter an error.) > > It's indeed a JVM "optimization" keep references alive *longer* than it seems > to be from the source code. But (1) already encapsulates that without > referring to JVM optimizations explicitly. That’s fair. What I’m looking for is something like this [1]: Reachability is not determined by the statements in your source code but by the actual state of the virtual machine at runtime. Mandy [1] The Java Programming Language, Fourth Edition, section 17.5.4
