https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48475
Josh Micich <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO --- Comment #1 from Josh Micich <[email protected]> 2010-01-02 11:11:21 UTC --- Your patch doesn't seem to change anything. I am almost certain that either version of this source file compiles to the same bytecode. I know synchronization errors are very difficult to prove, but can you at least write a non-deterministic test case (i.e. one that fails sometimes) to show that there is actually a problem here. A problem with a very similar description was 'fixed' with bug 47412. The problem there was much more obvious (concurrent access to a single map object referenced by a static field). Hopefully the 'fix' was obvious too (no test provided). >From what I understand, the JVM guarantees class initialisation to be synchronized, so the current code looks fine to me. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I don't see any point in making an apparent change that actually does nothing. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
