harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nathan Beyer <ndbe...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [jira] Created: (HARMONY-6404) possible data-reordering in some hashCode-methods (e.g. String or URL)
Date Sat, 09 Jan 2010 19:46:27 GMT
2010/1/9 Egor Pasko <egor.pasko@gmail.com>:
> On the 0x68E day of Apache Harmony Nathan Beyer wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 19/Dec/2009 20:54, Nathan Beyer wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>> On 19/Dec/2009 18:57, Nathan Beyer wrote:
>>>>>> RE: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-6404
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I posted up two proposed patches for String, please comment on which
>>>>>> is preferable. One is the change previously mentioned, the other
is a
>>>>>> slightly bigger reorganization.
>>>>> Neither.  There is nothing wrong with the original code.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any JVM or compiler that would actually move a load up above a
>>>>> conditional store to the same variable would be seriously broken all
round.
>>>>
>>>> Does that really matter?
>>>
>>> Yes, we don't code to allow for bogus VM/compiler implementations.
>>>
>>>> Shouldn't the Java source be written such that it's as correct as
>>>> possible according to the language spec and related specs?
>>>
>>> I'm guessing you have your tongue firmly in your cheek when writing that
>>> :-)  Yes to "correct as possible" but we don't account for the never to
>>> be implemented edge cases that are possible by the spec.
>>>
>>> Put another way, we don't fix things that are not broken.  I challenge
>>> you to show an implementation that would do the read re-ordering as you
>>> suggest.
>>
>> So what's all the fuss, then? According to this guy [1] ... our code
>> is broken and he helped define the memory model. This is the guy
>> suggesting the issue. Our code is almost exactly like the same he
>> describes as broken. The only difference is we have an extra check on
>> 'count'.
>>
>> At this point, I just want to understand.
>>
>> [1] http://jeremymanson.blogspot.com/2008/12/benign-data-races-in-java.html
>
> Sorry for delayed answer (was on vacation).
>
> After all the fuss I think Tim is right. JMM is a model that is close
> to real implementations except some corner cases like this. JMM allows
> slightly more than any JVM implementation would do. That's a good
> excersise to think about and be warned, but not a lot more.
>
> If our goal is to please all possible JVM implementations, we should
> bother, but that would be far from the main goal of the project. Until
> we have a meaningful implementation to make two memory loads in the
> place where only one is required, we should not take any action on
> hashCode.
>
> --
> Egor Pasko

Since this issue doesn't have clear consensus, at least not to me, I'd
like to get an explicit vote for resolving this issue as "Wont Fix".

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-6404
+1 to close as "Wont Fix"
-1 to leave open - please accompany with a patch

Mime
View raw message