At 7:50 PM +0000 6/24/99, David G. Wonnacott wrote:
>Is there some reason to consider (a) two provably equivalent models,
>(b) one unified model (the current state of affairs?), and (c) a JVM
>model and a statement that the JLS model is whatever translates into
>the JVM model, but not (d) a JLS model and a rule of the form "any
>compiler/JVM pair must preserve this model".
> >From (d) we would then derive a rule about the standard JVM that
>ensures any bytecodes are compilant, but we also have the option of
>producing more sophisticated compiler/JVM variants, based on future
>experience (these could even become parts of future versions of the
The problem is that compilers and VM's don't come in matched pairs.
Bytecode generated by any compiler should run on any JVM.
> Variants would have to tag bytecodes to make sure they
>weren't executed in a mismatched JVM, but I assume there's already a
>mechanism for this.
It wouldn't be valid Java is tags changed the semantics of the bytecodes.
This is the JavaMemoryModel mailing list, managed by Majordomo 1.94.4.
To send a message to the list, email JavaMemoryModel@cs.umd.edu
To send a request to the list, email firstname.lastname@example.org and put
your request in the body of the message (use the request "help" for help).
For more information, visit http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 13 2005 - 07:00:12 EDT