Replace memory barriers to better reflect Java needs.
Replaces barriers that enforce ordering of one access type
(e.g. Load) with respect to another (e.g. store) with more general
ones that better reflect both Java requirements and actual hardware
barrier/fence instructions. The old code was inconsistent and
unclear about which barriers implied which others. Sometimes
multiple barriers were generated and then eliminated;
sometimes it was assumed that certain barriers implied others.
The new barriers closely parallel those in C++11, though, for now,
we use something closer to the old naming.
Bug: 14685856
Change-Id: Ie1c80afe3470057fc6f2b693a9831dfe83add831
diff --git a/compiler/dex/quick/gen_common.cc b/compiler/dex/quick/gen_common.cc
index 6dc019a..c266a3c 100644
--- a/compiler/dex/quick/gen_common.cc
+++ b/compiler/dex/quick/gen_common.cc
@@ -629,8 +629,12 @@
field_info.StorageIndex(), r_base));
FreeTemp(r_tmp);
- // Ensure load of status and load of value don't re-order.
- GenMemBarrier(kLoadLoad);
+ // Ensure load of status and store of value don't re-order.
+ // TODO: Presumably the actual value store is control-dependent on the status load,
+ // and will thus not be reordered in any case, since stores are never speculated.
+ // Does later code "know" that the class is now initialized? If so, we still
+ // need the barrier to guard later static loads.
+ GenMemBarrier(kLoadAny);
}
FreeTemp(r_method);
}
@@ -723,7 +727,7 @@
FreeTemp(r_tmp);
// Ensure load of status and load of value don't re-order.
- GenMemBarrier(kLoadLoad);
+ GenMemBarrier(kLoadAny);
}
FreeTemp(r_method);
}