[jmm-dev] jdk9 APIs

[Hans Boehm]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 4:30 AM, Doug Lea <dl at cs.oswego.edu> wrote:
>
>
> This would not accommodate a suggestion on valhalla list to automatically
> equate get/set to relaxed vs volatile versions depending on the
declaration
> of the field. Which is arguable anyway because it would require tracking
down
> the declaration site to determine memory semantics.

Purely from a programming perspective, I don't think this is what you want
anyway.  I think one of the more common, and unusually safe, uses of
memory_order_relaxed in C++ is for non-racing accesses to atomic variables,
e.g. the second "check" in double-checked locking, or for reads of atomic
variables that are, in a sense, only hints and not trusted, e.g. the load
usually
preceding a CAS.  You really sometimes want plain gets on volatile data.