From 562bf20d642016c3b023901249fa9d72facfe332 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dmitry Khalanskiy <Dmitry.Khalanskiy@jetbrains.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 16:10:51 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] Fix incorrect ProGuard rules that allowed shrinking volatile
 felds

Fixes #1564
---
 .../jvm/resources/META-INF/proguard/coroutines.pro            | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kotlinx-coroutines-core/jvm/resources/META-INF/proguard/coroutines.pro b/kotlinx-coroutines-core/jvm/resources/META-INF/proguard/coroutines.pro
index 60c8d61243..96ffd29e8a 100644
--- a/kotlinx-coroutines-core/jvm/resources/META-INF/proguard/coroutines.pro
+++ b/kotlinx-coroutines-core/jvm/resources/META-INF/proguard/coroutines.pro
@@ -3,12 +3,12 @@
 -keepnames class kotlinx.coroutines.CoroutineExceptionHandler {}
 
 # Most of volatile fields are updated with AFU and should not be mangled
--keepclassmembernames class kotlinx.** {
+-keepclassmembers class kotlinx.** {
     volatile <fields>;
 }
 
 # Same story for the standard library's SafeContinuation that also uses AtomicReferenceFieldUpdater
--keepclassmembernames class kotlin.coroutines.SafeContinuation {
+-keepclassmembers class kotlin.coroutines.SafeContinuation {
     volatile <fields>;
 }