RFR: 8065804: JEP 171: Clarifications/corrections for fence intrinsics

Martin Buchholz martinrb at google.com
Tue Nov 25 00:47:19 UTC 2014

OK, I worked in some wording for comparison with volatiles.
I believe you when you say that the semantics of the corresponding C++
fences are slightly different, but it's rather subtle - can we say
anything more than "closely related to"?

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Aleksey Shipilev
<aleksey.shipilev at oracle.com> wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> On 11/24/2014 11:56 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>> Review carefully - I am trying to learn about fences by explaining them!
>> I have borrowed some wording from my reviewers!
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8065804
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk9/fence-intrinsics/
> I think "implies the effect of C++11" is too strong wording. "related"
> might be more appropriate.
> See also comments here for connection with "volatiles":
>  https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8038978
> Take note the Hans' correction that fences generally imply more than
> volatile load/store, but since you are listing the related things in the
> docs, I think the "native" Java example is good to have.
> -Aleksey.

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list