On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 08:09:31 GMT, Сергей Цыпанов <github.com+10835776+stsypa...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> Hello, > > is it possible to have a code review for the changes proposed in JDK-8251548 > (originally contributed via > https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2020-June/022137.html)? > Sean Mullan has created an issue and web-review and can sponsor the patch as > soos as it gets properly reviewed. > > The issue itself is a continuation of changes merged into java.base before as: > > - https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6736490 > - https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8035284 > - https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8145680 > > As Doug Lea claims in > http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/2015-December/014770.html > >> there is never any reason to explicitly initialize fields to 0/0.0/false/null > > so I believe this patch is harmless as well as previous ones. > > Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8251548 > Webrev: https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mullan/webrevs/8251548/ > > Thanks, > Sergey Tsypanov This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: f55dd9d4 Author: Sergey Tsypanov <sergei.tsypa...@yandex.ru> Committer: Weijun Wang <wei...@openjdk.org> URL: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/commit/f55dd9d4 Stats: 17 lines in 8 files changed: 0 ins; 0 del; 17 mod 8251548: Remove unnecessary explicit initialization of volatile variables in security-libs code Reviewed-by: mullan ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/218
