> On Aug 10, 2018, at 6:32 AM, Claes Redestad <claes.redes...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On 2018-08-09 18:28, Claes Redestad wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 2018-08-09 17:41, Peter Levart wrote:
>>>
>>> There's danger when you overwrite a non-null @Stable field with another
>>> value that this new value will not be seen. Or is <clinit> code an
>>> exception where @Stable is not honored yet...
>>
>> Typically IntegerCache::<clinit> runs before JIT has even started, so I
>> think we're OK even though the double-assignment is undefined. But it's a
>> good question what happens in cases we're running AOTd code, so perhaps this
>> pattern might be problematic in some future..
>>>
>>> To mitigate this possibility, you could have two fields:
>>>
>>> static Integer cache[];
>>> static final Integer finalCache[];
>>>
>>> The 'cache' field is archived and de-archived. The final result is set to
>>> 'cache' by overwriting and to 'finalCache'. The later is then also used in
>>> Integer.valueOf().
>>
>> Right, this would be a cheap way to dispel any concerns here.
>
> New webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/8209120/open.01/
>
> I've verified all cases I can think of manually, but would like to defer the
> creation of a sanity test to a follow-up RFE to allow time to think through
> and discussing how to best go about that (do we need to verify in depth, can
> we reuse some existing test etc..)
>
I think it’s better to include a good test case in this REF, especially since
object archiving is a new feature.
Thanks
Ioi
> Thanks!
>
> /Claes
