[PATCH] remove redundant initialization of volatile fields with default values

Сергей Цыпанов sergei.tsypanov at yandex.ru
Thu Aug 13 20:05:39 UTC 2020

Cool, thanks!

Do you know anyone who could sponsor this and create a web-review against the patch?

Sergeyt Tsypanov

13.08.2020, 19:22, "Sean Mullan" <sean.mullan at oracle.com>:
> On 8/13/20 9:04 AM, Сергей Цыпанов wrote:
>>  Hi,
>>  I don't have account in JBS, so I cannot file an issue.
>>  Previously when I submitted patches via core-libs-dev mailing list previleged users
>>  filed the issues and created web-reviews.
>>  I think this should be a subtask of https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6736490, there's
>>  already one I've mentioned in previous mail: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8145680
> Done: see https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8251548
> --Sean
>>  Regards,
>>  Sergey Tsypanov
>>  13.08.2020, 14:05, "Sean Mullan" <sean.mullan at oracle.com>:
>>>  On 8/13/20 7:04 AM, Сергей Цыпанов wrote:
>>>>    Hello,
>>>>    previously I've sent an email regarding removal of redundant assignments if default values to volatile fields, see
>>>>    https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2020-June/022137.html
>>>>    There was a concern whether it's completely safe to remove those assignments from JMM point of view, see
>>>>    https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2020-June/067341.html
>>>>    Recently I've found a thread in concurrency-interest mailing list where Aleksey Shiplive tried to find a constraint
>>>>    agians such removal: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/2015-December/014767.html__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!I4TMi9HPzckS0_w9Qmgw0-kGArRRuctFvBSnpthDRPaGGqgvl9yyrjVHboPdHMd6$
>>>>    It appears that there are no constraitns and Doug Lea mentions in
>>>>    https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/2015-December/014770.html__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!I4TMi9HPzckS0_w9Qmgw0-kGArRRuctFvBSnpthDRPaGGqgvl9yyrjVHbvX4nrL2$
>>>>    that "there is never any reason to explicitly initialize fields to 0/0.0/false/null"
>>>>    Also there we similar code changes in java.base before:
>>>>    - https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6736490
>>>>    - https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8035284
>>>>    - https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8145680
>>>>    So I think now we can accept the patch as the changes appear to be safe.
>>>  Ok, it seems like a good change. Are you able to file a JBS issue for
>>>  this? After that you can request a formal code review.
>>>  Thanks,
>>>  Sean

More information about the security-dev mailing list