[9] RFR(S): 8036851: volatile double accesses are not explicitly atomic in C2

[Andrew Haley]

On 05/02/2014 02:53 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> Glad to see this addressed. The patch looks fine to me (not a Reviewer).
> 
> I remember seeing places in C1 where we special-case T_LONG, so we
> probably need an additional work to fix it there as well. See e.g.
> LIRGenerator::volatile_field_store.

How on Earth does this work in the back end on a 32-bit box without 64-bit
operations?  Do you have to use a lock, and how does clone() work in that
case?

Andrew.