RFR: jsr166 jdk9 integration wave 6

Doug Lea dl at cs.oswego.edu
Mon Apr 4 11:14:06 UTC 2016

On 04/03/2016 06:17 PM, forax at univ-mlv.fr wrote:
>> De: "Martin Buchholz" <martinrb at google.com>

>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk9/jsr166-jdk9-integration/miscellaneous/
>>> aka introducing a new constructor seems to be a regression to me,
>>> the less overloads we have the better i understand the code.
>> For "telescoping constructors" and a parameter that's almost always
>> null, I disagree.
> if the parameter is often null, maybe the constructor with 4 parameters is useless, and next should be set explicitly in the few cases it's needed.
>> There's also the fear that the VM won't optimize away useless volatile
>> write to next.

Right. The issue is whether to be explicit about lack of need of a fence,
or to hope that the compiler figures it out. Especially in a component as
commonly used as CHM, being explicit seems like the right choice.


More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list