Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

#456 Directly replace Fence with the methods setRelease, setVolatile, and getAcquire. No need to set barriers via VarHandle #457

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

chenggwang
Copy link

Since we already have VALUE_FIELD, it is more semantically clear to directly replace Fence with the methods setRelease, setVolatile, and getAcquire. No need to set barriers via VarHandle.It's not a high priority, and it's not really a bug

…getAcquire

Since we already have VALUE_FIELD, it is more semantically clear to directly replace Fence with the methods setRelease, setVolatile, and getAcquire. No need to set barriers via VarHandle
…getAcquire

Since we already have VALUE_FIELD, it is more semantically clear to directly replace Fence with the methods setRelease, setVolatile, and getAcquire. No need to set barriers via VarHandle
@chenggwang
Copy link
Author

@Palmr I don't think it's going to cause a barrier loss. Do you think that's okay?

@chenggwang
Copy link
Author

Can anyone help review this?Thanks!

@Palmr
Copy link
Contributor

Palmr commented Sep 29, 2023

There's already a version of this in the code for benchmarking, see SequenceVarHandle.java

As noted in SequenceBenchmark.java we felt the manual barriers were nicer since they cut down on boxing and casting.

As you say, "It's not a high priority, and it's not really a bug" so it's unlikely this PR will be merged unless some befit can be found and demonstrated.

@chenggwang
Copy link
Author

There's already a version of this in the code for benchmarking, see SequenceVarHandle.java

As noted in SequenceBenchmark.java we felt the manual barriers were nicer since they cut down on boxing and casting.

As you say, "It's not a high priority, and it's not really a bug" so it's unlikely this PR will be merged unless some befit can be found and demonstrated.

OK

@Palmr Palmr closed this Sep 29, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants