[jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8186787: clang-4.0 SIGSEGV in Unsafe_PutByte

[Andrew Dinn]

On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 13:10:58 GMT, Zdenek Zambersky <zzambers at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> @jerboaa I think this is fine to backport. Adding a volatile qualifier to the access cannot really do any harm as it has the very limited effect of stopping the C++ compiler from reordering the volatile field access write relative to other volatile field accesses within the current thread's instruction stream. Since that is actually what is required here I cannot see any real risk. My real concern is that the introduction of volatile is clearly flagged in comments and happens at a point where it is most obvious what is going on and why.
>
> @adinn thank you for the review
> 
> I added comment, as you have suggested. (As in the end, approach with DEFINE_GETSETOOP is not used, I kept it as it is.)
> Should I mark you as co-author?
>  
> I rebased changes on current master, to avoid some unrelated, already fixed failures in GHA testing.

@zzambers It's fine as it is.

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/553#issuecomment-2684924645