On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 2:19 PM Doug Lea <d...@cs.oswego.edu> wrote: > Catching up... > > As implied in other posts, the minimal fix is to add a trailing release > fence (using Unsafe?) to the constructor.
FYI I have sent an RFR with the proposed fix ^ https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2020-August/068244.html > Or less delicately, to access > only using acquire/release (which will cost a bit on ARM/Power, but > probably not noticeable on x86), or most simply (but expensively) to > declare the field volatile. > > Also, as Hans noted, the consensus seems to be that there not enough to > be gained by always adding a release fence to constructors. A few errors > like this might never occur, but other related anomalies with non-final > field accesses would remain. > > -Doug > >
