Re: RFR: 8259021 avoid double racy reads from non-volatile fields of SharedSecrets [v2]
On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 15:11:27 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
>> Peter Levart has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> revert the unrelated change
>
> The bug title and the PR title need to be the same.
> Editing either one is fine.
But wouldn't it be legal for a compiler (java to bytecode or bytecode to
machinecode) to replace references of my_local_copy with references to
static_field?
Foo my_local_copy = static_field;
if (my_copy == null) {
initialize();
my_local_copy = static_field;
}
return my_local_copy;
Only if static_field was volatile this would be illegal, wouldn't it?
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/1914
Re: RFR: 8259021 avoid double racy reads from non-volatile fields of SharedSecrets [v2]
On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 14:27:09 GMT, Peter Levart wrote: >> See: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8259021 >> See also discussion in thread: >> https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2020-December/072798.html > > Peter Levart has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last revision: > > revert the unrelated change The bug title and the PR title need to be the same. Editing either one is fine. - Marked as reviewed by rriggs (Reviewer). PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/1914
Re: RFR: 8259021 avoid double racy reads from non-volatile fields of SharedSecrets [v2]
On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 14:27:09 GMT, Peter Levart wrote: >> See: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8259021 >> See also discussion in thread: >> https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2020-December/072798.html > > Peter Levart has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last revision: > > revert the unrelated change Marked as reviewed by redestad (Reviewer). - PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/1914
Re: RFR: 8259021 avoid double racy reads from non-volatile fields of SharedSecrets [v2]
> See: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8259021 > See also discussion in thread: > https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2020-December/072798.html Peter Levart has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision: revert the unrelated change - Changes: - all: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/1914/files - new: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/1914/files/d3b4c98f..dd1447a0 Webrevs: - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk=1914=01 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk=1914=00-01 Stats: 3 lines in 1 file changed: 0 ins; 2 del; 1 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/1914.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/1914/head:pull/1914 PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/1914
