Re: JavaMemoryModel: Idiom for safe, unsynchronized reads

From: Raymie Stata (
Date: Tue Jun 29 1999 - 01:22:00 EDT

The following statement of mine is very misleading:

> It seems to me that this conversation would be more efficient if we
> could agree to the following:
> Version (B) is simpler to understand than Version (A). Version (A)
> is preferable because it's faster. More generally, "synchronized
> access to all shared variables" is a simpler principle by which to
> program than trying to selectively apply idioms for unsynchronized
> access. The attraction of a tighter memory specification is _not_
> to prevent the "unwashed masses" from introducing race errors but
> rather to allow programs to run faster by removing unneeded
> synchronizations.
> In what way do you disagree with this statement?

This is not _my_ position -- this is a position I'm arguing against. But
this is what I think is the position of Josh and others defending the
stronger JMM semantics. I was hoping to clarify that that the primary
motivation for the stronger semantics is not avoidance of programming
errors but rather performance improvements.
This is the JavaMemoryModel mailing list, managed by Majordomo 1.94.4.

To send a message to the list, email
To send a request to the list, email and put
your request in the body of the message (use the request "help" for help).
For more information, visit

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