On Feb 26, 2014, at 5:38 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>>> Not sure the static powerCache field, in the original code, needs to be
>>> volatile either:
>>>
>>> 1137 private static volatile BigInteger[][] powerCache;
>>
>> Is there consensus on whether "volatile" is necessary here?
>>
>
> Looking back at the discussions i believe it was made volatile to ensure
> threads don't observe a partially updated and published cache lines.
>
> Since we are already using Unsafe for deserialization I think it might be
> possible to do the following instead (warning: not tested!):
Thanks for the suggestion, Paul. Assuming it is correct, in what way would this
be a better approach? (I apologize for being obtuse.)
If it looks worth doing, I'll file another issue to track the idea. I already
have it on my list anyway to follow up on Alan Eliasen's comment in the
BigInteger code:
* This could be changed to a more complicated caching method using
* {@code Future}.
*/
private static BigInteger getRadixConversionCache(int radix, int exponent) {
Thanks,
Brian
