Cool, thanks! Do you know anyone who could sponsor this and create a web-review against the patch?
Regards, Sergeyt Tsypanov 13.08.2020, 19:22, "Sean Mullan" <sean.mul...@oracle.com>: > On 8/13/20 9:04 AM, Сергей Цыпанов wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I don't have account in JBS, so I cannot file an issue. >> >> Previously when I submitted patches via core-libs-dev mailing list >> previleged users >> filed the issues and created web-reviews. >> >> I think this should be a subtask of >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6736490, there's >> already one I've mentioned in previous mail: >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8145680 > > Done: see https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8251548 > > --Sean > >> Regards, >> Sergey Tsypanov >> >> 13.08.2020, 14:05, "Sean Mullan" <sean.mul...@oracle.com>: >>> On 8/13/20 7:04 AM, Сергей Цыпанов wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> previously I've sent an email regarding removal of redundant >>>> assignments if default values to volatile fields, see >>>> >>>> https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2020-June/022137.html >>>> >>>> There was a concern whether it's completely safe to remove those >>>> assignments from JMM point of view, see >>>> >>>> https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2020-June/067341.html >>>> >>>> Recently I've found a thread in concurrency-interest mailing list where >>>> Aleksey Shiplive tried to find a constraint >>>> agians such removal: >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/2015-December/014767.html__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!I4TMi9HPzckS0_w9Qmgw0-kGArRRuctFvBSnpthDRPaGGqgvl9yyrjVHboPdHMd6$ >>>> >>>> It appears that there are no constraitns and Doug Lea mentions in >>>> >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/2015-December/014770.html__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!I4TMi9HPzckS0_w9Qmgw0-kGArRRuctFvBSnpthDRPaGGqgvl9yyrjVHbvX4nrL2$ >>>> that "there is never any reason to explicitly initialize fields to >>>> 0/0.0/false/null" >>>> >>>> Also there we similar code changes in java.base before: >>>> >>>> - https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6736490 >>>> - https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8035284 >>>> - https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8145680 >>>> >>>> So I think now we can accept the patch as the changes appear to be safe. >>> >>> Ok, it seems like a good change. Are you able to file a JBS issue for >>> this? After that you can request a formal code review. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Sean
