> 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.
> 

Reply via email to