Hi David,
On 11/16/2016 03:21 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Zoltan,
First, I'm okay with latest webrev.
thank you.
Second, I don't want to confuse things but need to correct one thing ...
I think you rather clarified things.
On 15/11/2016 10:41 PM, Zoltán Majó wrote:
[...]
For example, statement (2) can be possibly (mis-)read as the JVM making
references unreachable *earlier* than what a programmer may think --
based on the source code.(That is clearly not the case: References are
available at least until the latest program point where they are used,
otherwise the program would encounter an error.)
Actually it can make references unreachable earlier than may be
expected. The wording Mandy suggested comes from the JLS itself - see
12.6.1.
That is right -- thank you for pointing to the relevant section of the JLS.
(Though I agree it isn't the right disclaimer for the current
situation - where the interpreter keeps the reference reachable longer
than naively expected).
Please see my reply to Mandy's email.
Thank you!
Best regards,
Zoltan
David
-----
It's indeed a JVM "optimization" keep references alive *longer* than it
seems to be from the source code. But (1) already encapsulates that
without referring to JVM optimizations explicitly.
[...]
Making it clear “strongly reachable” is a good suggestion. I don’t
see word-smithing is needed in the original sentence; hence my above
suggested change only adds the word “strongly” in this sentence.
I agree.
Here is the updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~zmajo/8169000/webrev.02/
Thank you!
Best regards,
Zoltan
Mandy
