RE: JavaMemoryModel: proposal for semantics & implementation on relaxed memory model machines

From: Bill Pugh (
Date: Thu Jul 15 1999 - 15:53:19 EDT

At 2:46 PM -0400 7/15/99, Doug Lea wrote:
>Initialization issues aside, it is probably a good idea to change
>semantics of volatile in this way. I could then kill passages in
>CPJ/2e that warn people that accessing a volatile array variable does
>not automatically provide access to its elements. Which no matter how
>many times you tell people (including myself), is just too easy to
>escape even careful review and cause errors. (As a couple of people
>on this list will attest :-)

Of course, the simple implementation for this (put a read barrier
after each load of a volatile field) doesn't give you the semantics
you might want for a volatile field referencing an array of arrays of


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 - 07:00:16 EDT