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

From: Doug Lea (
Date: Fri Jul 16 1999 - 21:22:44 EDT

I said:

> I think this is acceptable too. It occurred to me though that the other
> fields must also be initialization safe "for free", so it might as
> well be stated more broadly. At least in any implementation I can
> imagine. But sometimes I don't have a good enough imagination.

Not nearly good enough. One thing the narrow version would allow is to
skip barriers on an unsync method accessing only non-final fields. Not
that this would ordinarily be very common most programa claiming to
be safe, but it might be common otherwise, so worth exploiting.


PS I'll be away for a week starting now, so arguing with me will do
you no good :-)

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 - 07:00:17 EDT