On 12/01/2016 12:05 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
On 1 Dec 2016, at 11:17, Xueming Shen<xueming.s...@oracle.com>  wrote:

On 11/28/2016 11:27 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
On 25 Nov 2016, at 02:47, Tobias Hartmann<tobias.hartm...@oracle.com>   wrote:

I'm not sure if it is still desired to do the same boundary check in case of 
for the benefit of consistency.  Assume there might be concurrent 
between val = this.value and count = this.count; (for StringBuilder) for 
the this.value got doubled and the this.count got increased. One will end up 
StringIndexOutOfBoundsException() from checkOffset, but the other will be ioobe
from vm?
You mean when hitting a check in an intrinsic compared to when hitting a check 
in the Java wrapper?

Not quite. There is a spliterator implementation for each coder, in the case of 
the LATIN1 coder there are no associated intrinsics. I think it’s ok just to 
perform the explicit bounds check for the UTF16 coder, since for the LATIN1 
bounds checks will be performed by baloads.

However, i think there is bug. The coder could change from LATIN1 to UTF16, 
while holding a reference to a byte[] value as LATIN1.

For StringBuilder i could fix that by atomically reading the value/count/coder, 
but there is still an issue with StringBuffer. Thus, in the UTF16 coder 
spliterator we need to perform the explicit bounds before *every* 

Webrev updated:



Hi Paul,

Seems like we do have a bug here. But I think to use "charAt()" might not be the
desired/correct approach here?

I think the patch is correct for both StringBuffer and StringBuilder.

It is specified that buffer must remain constant during execution of the stream 
terminal operation otherwise the results are undefined. Such an undefined 
result might be the throwing of an IndexOutOfBounds.

Ok, if the spec does not require to guarantee the correctness in , then the
patch is fine. It might be a small surprise  for some of the StringBuffer users
with the false assumption that StringBuffer is thread-safe so the returned
stream is kinda thread-safe as well.

I'm fine with either way you think is appropriate from "stream" point of


For StringBuffer, since we have to guarantee the correctness in concurrent use 
I would assume we need a synchronized version of getSupplier(...) to return a 
late binding
and thread-safe Supplier in StringBuffer, similar to "getBytes(...)" (we have a 
version of getBytes() in AbstractStringBuilder and a synced version at the 
bottom of the
StringBuffer.java). This should be for the latin1 case as well.

I did ponder that, and moving the stream returning methods into the concrete 
builder classes. I opted for the sneakier approach :-) what do you prefer?

For StringBuilder, since the only concern is the bounds check, I think the 
checkOffset(...) should be good enough, even in case the coder changes from 
to utf16, as the checkOffset(...) checks the "count" against "val.length>>  
coder" on
the local copy,  the getChar() access after that should be safe (though might 
not be
correct, if it's a utf16 coder on a latin1 byte[]).

Yes, i was being very conservative (I mistakenly thought the original code read 
the coder field twice).

If we go with the single wider bounds check i think we should place it in the a 
root spliterator constructor if possible.


Reply via email to