On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 18:28:04 GMT, Chen Liang <li...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> On 32 bit platforms, when an access to long/double is aligned, it is >> supported but not atomic. The original wording in >> `MethodHandles::byteBufferViewVarHandle` sounds as if it is not supported at >> all. We can fix that by borrowing the improved specification from >> `MemoryLayout::varHandle`. >> >> Note: This doc is copied from >> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/ee0d309bbd33302d8c6f35155e975db77aaea785/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/foreign/MemoryLayout.java#L279-L282 >> with slight adjustments. See the rendering at >> https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/24/docs/api/java.base/java/lang/foreign/MemoryLayout.html#access-mode-restrictions > > Chen Liang has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last revision: > > Simplify wording Marked as reviewed by jrose (Reviewer). The previous comment is informational only. I'm NOT suggesting the PR use the term "struct tearing", since that is not a term in the JVMS. It's just a useful term that has cropped up in Project Valhalla as the generalization of long/double non-atomicity. Another Valhalla term for the same thing, FWIW, is "loose consistency". For technical discourse, either term is better than just "non-atomicity", since "non-atomicity" doesn't suggest there is any limit to the tearing; using bytewise memcpy on a long or a value object would be "non-atomic" but not "loosely consistent", so there is important daylight between the terms. ------------- PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26258#pullrequestreview-3031277023 PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26258#issuecomment-3085811559
