Hi Aleskey, Thank you for your comment.
I forgot to mention one thing. I verified that all accesses to langReflectioAccess calls the accessor "langReflectAccess()". Since this variable is modified once from null to non-null, I think the write in the setter is guaranteed to be visible in the getter by putting the synchronized block in langReflectAccess(). Should I put comments about this assumption? Actually, in JDK11 there are some lines that do not call the getter, so backport needs to fix them, too. Regards, Ogata Aleksey Shipilev <sh...@redhat.com> wrote on 2019/07/17 16:49:08: > From: Aleksey Shipilev <sh...@redhat.com> > To: Kazunori Ogata <oga...@jp.ibm.com>, core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net > Date: 2019/07/17 16:49 > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: RFR: JDK-8227831: Avoid using volatile for write- > once, read-many class field > > On 7/17/19 8:48 AM, Kazunori Ogata wrote: > > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ogatak/8227831/webrev/ > > Note this is generally not safe: it introduces data race on > langReflectAccess field access. It has > to be proved that everything that implements LangReflectAccess interface > makes this data race > benign: e.g. all fields that are accessed via those implementation are > final, read once, etc. And > briefly looking at that, I am not sure it is the case for the actual > accessor generators. > > I'd cautiously leave "volatile" here. > > -- > Thanks, > -Aleksey > > [attachment "signature.asc" deleted by Kazunori Ogata/Japan/IBM]
