Hi Andrew, On Mar 11, 2015, at 6:27 PM, Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 03/11/2015 07:10 AM, John Rose wrote: >>> >>> John: I'm waiting for an answer to my question here before I submit >>> a webrev for approval. >>> >>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/panama-dev/2015-March/000099.html >> >> (Answered.) > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aph/unaligned.jdk.5/ > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aph/unaligned.hotspot.5/ > > I hope everybody is happy with this, or at least not so unhappy that > they would want to reject it altogether. > Some minor comment on the JavaDoc. I think it more preferable to refer to "underlying platform" or "platform" rather than "machine", at least thats the kind of language i have seen commonly used in other places. 1062 * The write will be atomic with respect to the largest power of 1063 * two that divides the GCD of the offset and the storage size. 1064 * For example, getLongUnaligned will make atomic reads of 2-, 4-, 1065 * or 8-byte storage units if the offset is zero mod 2, 4, or 8, 1066 * respectively. There are no other guarantees of atomicity. 1067 * <p> 1068 * 1069 * @param o Java heap object in which the value resides, if any, else 1070 * null 1071 * @param offset The offset in bytes from the start of the object 1072 * @param x the value to store 1073 * @throws RuntimeException No defined exceptions are thrown, not even 1074 * {@link NullPointerException} 1075 * @since 1.9 1076 */ 1077 public final void putLongUnaligned(Object o, long offset, long x) { s/reads/writes. In the example it might be worth pointing out that is for 64-bit systems? > There is no bug ID for this yet. John, would you like to create a bug > database entry? If not, I'll do so. Then I can go for a RFR, which > hopefully should be a shoo-in now that we've beaten this thing to > death. :-) > We need to include some unit tests before we can push. As i said, if you like i can help you with that and also performing a JPRT run across multiple platforms. Paul.
