RFR 8005704: Update ConcurrentHashMap to v8

Chris Hegarty chris.hegarty at oracle.com
Wed May 29 14:45:26 UTC 2013

On 29/05/2013 15:28, Peter Levart wrote:
> .....
>>> I don't feel strongly about this either, but I think it deserves
>>> possibly its own bug number and consideration. I have removed it from
>>> this review request, and will a file a new bug to track it.
> Hi,
> Why not using Unsafe (which is already used in CHM) to re-use the
> AbstractMap.keySet/values fields? They could even be accessed with
> normal non-volatile read/write although they are declared volatile in
> AbstractMap. Is this to "hacky"?

Possibly a little hacky, and I guess may sacrifice a little performance? 
But this kind of analysis/investigation, and any compatibility concerns, 
are exactly why I think this deserves its own bug. I'm not saying that 
it's not worth pursuing, just that we should decouple it from the other 
changes going on here. (Says me who wanted to resync, in one pass, the 
complete j.u.c last week!)


> Regards, Peter

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list