RFR: 8073093: AARCH64: C2 generates poor code for ByteBuffer accesses

Vitaly Davidovich vitalyd at gmail.com
Wed Feb 18 15:32:40 UTC 2015

Ok, perhaps I misunderstood then since you mentioned Unsafe.storeFence() in
your earlier post and Vladimir said they were debating whether these fences
should be removed.  If you guys were talking only about the final field
fence, then my bad, I don't disagree with removing those if the object
doesn't escape.

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 02/18/2015 02:16 PM, Vitaly Davidovich wrote:
> > I don't think explicit barriers (i.e. Unsafe.xxxFence) should be removed
> as
> > I don't think compiler can prove that it's safe to do so.
> Nobody thinks that explicit barriers (i.e. Unsafe.xxxFence) should be
> removed.
> We're talking about fences at the end of constructors which have final
> fields.  These should be removed if the object does not escape.
> Andrew.

More information about the hotspot-dev mailing list