-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.5k
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
8145948: C2: Initializing volatile fields to default values should be optimized #19721
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
8145948: C2: Initializing volatile fields to default values should be optimized #19721
Conversation
👋 Welcome back shade! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into |
❗ This change is not yet ready to be integrated. |
if (is_vol && !(method()->is_initializer() && _gvn.type(val)->is_zero_type())) { | ||
// Volatile fields initialized to default values in constructor are | ||
// indistinguishable from the default field initializations. They do | ||
// do not require full barriers. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
only if it's the very first put, right?
@shipilev This pull request has been inactive for more than 8 weeks and will be automatically closed if another 8 weeks passes without any activity. To avoid this, simply add a new comment to the pull request. Feel free to ask for assistance if you need help with progressing this pull request towards integration! |
Not now, bot. |
@shipilev This pull request has been inactive for more than 8 weeks and will be automatically closed if another 8 weeks passes without any activity. To avoid this, simply add a new comment to the pull request. Feel free to ask for assistance if you need help with progressing this pull request towards integration! |
Not now, bot. |
WIP.
New benchmark shows expected improvements. Actually, I suppose we can eliminate the barriers for all volatile writes in initializers, and instead rely on final-field-like semantics, but that requires a more comprehensive arguments, so I'll leave that for future work.
Additional testing:
all
all
Progress
Issue
Reviewing
Using
git
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/19721/head:pull/19721
$ git checkout pull/19721
Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/19721
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/19721/head
Using Skara CLI tools
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 19721
View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 19721
Using diff file
Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19721.diff