RFR (S) 8223472: volatile long field corruption on x86_32

[Boris Ulasevich]

Hi Coleen,

I added short comment, thanks! And yes, from first look it seems that 
double load/store needs to be marked MO_RELAXED as well, but on x86 
fstp/fld is atomic, so no extra flag is actually need.

thank you,
Boris

On 08.05.2019 16:56, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
> 
> I just had a look at this and it looks unsettlingly random without a 
> short comment why MO_RELAXED is needed for long and not the others. Is 
> it because on 32 bits, double is two words that have to be atomically 
> stored?  Would a volatile double have the same problem? I see 
> getfield_or_static has the MO_RELAXED and a comment, so that's good.  I 
> don't need to see a new version if you add a *short* comment like this.
> 
> Thanks,
> Coleen
> 
> 
> On 5/8/19 4:17 AM, Boris Ulasevich wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Please review a simple change to fix long field store atomicity for 
>> 32-bit x86 interpreter.
>>
>> http://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8223472
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bulasevich/8223472/webrev.00
>>
>> thanks,
>> Boris
>