> On 12 Dec 2015, at 11:27 a.m., Peter Levart <peter.lev...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > Your latest code does not build with jdk9/dev as it uses > @jdk.internal.vm.annotation.DontInline, but in jdk9/dev the @DontInline is > still in java.lang.invoke. > > Is there a plan to push the move of DontInline annotation before this change > as I haven's seen any RFR for the move yet?
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8144223 The change is making its way through hs-comp. -Chris. > Regards, Peter > >> On 12/11/2015 10:36 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote: >> Unless any strong objections are raised I plan to push the latest path on >> Monday. >> >>> Updated: >>> >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psandoz/jdk9/JDK-8133348-reachability-fence-jdk/webrev/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/ref/Reference.java.sdiff.html >>> >>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psandoz/jdk9/JDK-8133348-reachability-fence-jdk/webrev/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/ref/Reference.java.sdiff.html> >>> >>> I think there is an opportunity to add further examples, but i would like >>> to take a swing at that later on. >>> >>> >>>> - I now agree with you and Doug about calling this a "fence". Can we >>>> just name it "fence" rather than the wordier "reachabilityFence"? >>>> Looking at a typical invocation, >>>> >>>> Reference.reachabilityFence(); >>>> >>>> seems a bit redundant while >>>> >>>> Reference.fence(); >>>> >>>> reads quite nicely. Is there, or will there ever be, any other kind >>>> of reference-related fence? >>> I doubt there will be another kind of reference fence, but it could be used >>> in conjunction with other memory fences (currently on VarHandles) and if >>> static imports are used it might look rather out of place as to what fence >>> “fence” actually refers to. That is why i prefer the longer more >>> descriptive name. >>> >>> Paul. >
