On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 22:58:09 GMT, Roger Riggs <rri...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Classes in the `java.lang.ref` package would benefit from an update to bring 
>> the spec in line with how the VM already behaves. The changes would focus on 
>> _happens-before_ edges at some key points during reference processing.
>> 
>> A couple key things we want to be able to say are:
>> - `Reference.reachabilityFence(x)` _happens-before_ reference processing 
>> occurs for 'x'.
>> - `Cleaner.register()` _happens-before_ the Cleaner thread runs the 
>> registered cleaning action.
>> 
>> This will bring Cleaner in line (or close) with the memory visibility 
>> guarantees made for finalizers in [JLS 
>> 17.4.5](https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se18/html/jls-17.html#jls-17.4.5):
>> _"There is a happens-before edge from the end of a constructor of an object 
>> to the start of a finalizer (ยง12.6) for that object."_
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/ref/Reference.java line 552:
> 
>> 550:      * of this method.
>> 551:      * Invocation of this method does not itself initiate reference 
>> processing,
>> 552:      * garbage collection, or finalization.
> 
> My understanding was that it is not the object instance that is being 
> guarded, only that the reference holding the object is considered a strong 
> root and is only used to delimit a range of bytecodes for which the reference 
> is considered to be strong.
> In particular, the invocation of the method itself has no semantics, only 
> that a control flow could reach that statement and the reference was 
> considered strong as long as the reference was in a scope that included the 
> reachability fence.

The existing docs refer to "invocation" of this method. I've continued with 
that, and in general have kept this at a bit higher level, in order to simplify 
understanding.

I'm open to more detailed wording, if it would improve understandability, (or 
if what I have is not functionally accurate).

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16644#discussion_r1411372474

Reply via email to