A third options:
Any writes to final fields that violate the rules are not ordered by the
happens-before relationship. This includes there not being a relationship
between these writes and other operations in the same thread.
Compiler's are allowed to make act in this way so we should reflect what
the compiler might do in the memory model.
At 05:55 AM 12/27/2003, Bill Pugh wrote:
>Steve Dever from Sun pointed out that the old JVM spec for final fields
>has a far weaker definition than the JLS spec.
>The only restriction on final fields I could find in the JVM spec is that
>write-access to final fields is private. From the definition of putfield:
>>Otherwise, if the field is final, it must be declared in the current
>>class. Otherwise, an IllegalAccessError is thrown
>The same thing applies to static fields.
>The spec also says:
>> * The descriptions of the instructions putfield and putstatic now
>> include a specification of their behavior when a field is final. This
>> documents the behavior of existing implementation.
>We've been saying all along that JSR-133 overrides both the old JLS and
>the old JVM spec. The JSR-133 commmunity review document described the new
>semantics of final fields in both the JLS and JVM spec, and we didn't get
>any complaints about it. So it seems we are clear to continue.
>However, it is worth doing an extra level of investigation on this. I
>checked, and the behavior described in the JVM spec seems to be the
>current behavior of the JVM (1.5.0 build 30).
>No class files generated by javac should cause problems, so our primary
>concern is classfiles created by other language tools, or by bytecode
>I think we have two options:
>We continue as planned, bring the restrictions on final fields in bytecode
>in sync with those in the JLS (e.g., every final field must be written to
>exactly once in a constructor, or in the static initializer for final
>If the accesses to a final field do not respect those provided for by the
>JLS, then the field is only write protected, not final in the sense of
>JSR-133. We already need write-protected fields to handle System.in,
>System.out and System.err. This would just provide a general way of doing
>so, although not through Java source code. Note that this would allow us
>to implement System.in etc without using JNI or Unsafe. We would just need
>to generate a classfile for java.lang.System in which putstatic
>instructions were used to change System.in, System.out and System.err.
>The problem with option 1 is that there is a possibility that somebody
>might be generating code that depends on the existing (broken, in my
>opinion) JVM spec for final fields.
>The problem with option 2 is that it would create a confusing programming
>model if some final fields were not really final. Having System.out etc
>being write protected rather than final is confusing enough. Never being
>sure what semantics any particular final field has is worse.
>JavaMemoryModel mailing list - http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel
JavaMemoryModel mailing list - http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 13 2005 - 07:00:55 EDT