RE: JavaMemoryModel: Unexpected weakness/divergence in old JVM spec of final fields

From: Sylvia Else (sylviae@optushome.com.au)
Date: Mon Jan 05 2004 - 15:26:28 EST

At 11:40 AM 5/01/2004 -0500, Bill Pugh wrote:

>If not, do we have to say what the semantics are for classfiles that
>violate this rule, or can we simply leave it undefined?

I don't think you could leave it undefined. Doing so could conceivably
create a security hole in classes that were safe under earlier JVMs.

Requiring the 1.5 JVMs reject such class files doesn't seem to onerous,
even if the reference 1.5 alpha JVM doesn't.

Sylvia.

-------------------------------
JavaMemoryModel mailing list - http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 13 2005 - 07:00:56 EDT