java 代码优化的危险是将弱引用用于局部变量中记住的强引用？[已结束]

问：

我遇到过这样的问题，有时我对某个对象的弱引用就消失了，即使我在局部变量中记住了强引用。但在我看来，这可能与JIT优化有关。 今天，在 Java 11 中，在我看来，我可以找到这种行为的可重复确认。因此，在局部变量中记住了对弱引用的某些内容的引用的情况下，它可能不会阻止该对象进行垃圾回收。我可以使用以下构造重现该问题：

SomeObjectStructure locId = generateIdAndRememberInternallyWeakReferenceToIdObject();
// This did not work:
// Reference.reachabilityFence(locId);
// The only working solution for my singleton was to assign 
// the Id to the ThreadLocal field value of the singleton:
// currentThreadId.set(locId)
try {
  // do some stuff here, but do not work with variable locId
  // directly, only try to ask for the weak reference sometimes
  somethingAskingWeakReferenceToId();
  // In the above method sometimes, the weak reference shows null, so
  // even if one would think, the local variable locId 
  // is preventing the object from garbage collection, it does not.
  // There were situations where at this time the id has
  // already gone. In other cases it was still there.
  // This has then serious consequences if you rely 
  // on the presence of the Id in the weak reference 
  // container in the code here:
  doSomethingOnTheBasisOfContentOfRememberedWeakReference();
} finally {
  // Following statement has been intended to release the strong reference 
  // locId to allow the GC of the the weakly internally remembered Id
  // after the finally block ends, but 
  // sometimes this can be ignored by the compiler 
  // or optimizer, the variable 
  // could be released much earlier than after this place in the code:
  locId = null;
  // Instead of the above statement I used later this one:
  // currentThreadId.set(null);
  // to release the locId remembered in the ThreadLocal variable 
  // of class containing the code.
}

我找到了 Oracle 优化的页面，类似的东西也可能从中得出结论，请参阅此处。我说得对吗？或者对这种行为有其他解释吗？如果我在一些 ThreadLocal 变量中另外记住了 id（我的对象是单例），那么问题也消失了。同样在这个问题中，讨论了类似的问题，并提出了使用的解决方案

Reference.reachabilityFence(locId);

在分配变量之后，我也进行了测试，但在我的情况下，这没有帮助，变量内容在到达最终块之前仍然被垃圾收集......为什么会这样？

但是带有栅栏的解决方案也有缺点，如果我理解正确的话，应该记住变量内容，而不是在变量的可见性范围结束之前，而是在方法完成之前。但它仍然没有奏效......

有没有其他方法可以防止编译器/优化器的这种行为？