[concurrency-interest] Reordering and Immutability

oleksandr otenko oleksandr.otenko at oracle.com
Wed Feb 6 15:42:59 EST 2013

I am thinking of a case where the CPU already has the value at that 
address in cache. The value cached has been GCed long since, and now 
that memory is reused by a reference to Resource. If accesses to static 
members are not volatile, then what stops the thread from observing the 
static initialization completed, and the reference that was not nulled 
yet, and pointing somewhere dark.

On the other hand, if there is a ordering constraint on static 
initializer finishing, the other threads observing this, and those 
threads loading the values of static fields, then any static field 
initialization is thread safe without extra requirement to mark it 
volatile. Since it seems the point of the remark was that any value can 
be observed, I assume there is no ordering constraint, go to original 
question: what enforces the order of observing the class is initialized 
and loading the reference.


On 06/02/2013 19:21, Stanimir Simeonoff wrote:
>     Then it may also return a non-null value that is not even a valid
>     reference,
> It will be a valid reference. It may not properly initialized instance 
> but still a valid reference.
>     and certainly doesn't necessarily reference a valid Resource instance.
> There is no definition of a valid Resource coming from the snippet but 
> the Resource c-tor can be invoked multiple times given the lack of 
> synchronization/locking.
> Stanimir

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/attachments/20130206/cfc4a2a8/attachment.html>

More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list