Hi, I don't have account in JBS, so I cannot file an issue.
Previously when I submitted patches via core-libs-dev mailing list previleged users filed the issues and created web-reviews. I think this should be a subtask of https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6736490, there's already one I've mentioned in previous mail: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8145680 Regards, Sergey Tsypanov 13.08.2020, 14:05, "Sean Mullan" <sean.mul...@oracle.com>: > On 8/13/20 7:04 AM, Сергей Цыпанов wrote: >> Hello, >> >> previously I've sent an email regarding removal of redundant assignments if >> default values to volatile fields, see >> https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2020-June/022137.html >> >> There was a concern whether it's completely safe to remove those >> assignments from JMM point of view, see >> https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2020-June/067341.html >> >> Recently I've found a thread in concurrency-interest mailing list where >> Aleksey Shiplive tried to find a constraint >> agians such removal: >> http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/2015-December/014767.html >> >> It appears that there are no constraitns and Doug Lea mentions in >> >> http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/2015-December/014770.html >> that "there is never any reason to explicitly initialize fields to >> 0/0.0/false/null" >> >> Also there we similar code changes in java.base before: >> >> - https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6736490 >> - https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8035284 >> - https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8145680 >> >> So I think now we can accept the patch as the changes appear to be safe. > > Ok, it seems like a good change. Are you able to file a JBS issue for > this? After that you can request a formal code review. > > Thanks, > Sean
