I'm sorry, you are correct. I didn't notice that you had declared
MTSingleton to be volatile. Sorry about that.
But doesn't depending on static initialization just work?
Bill
At 11:39 AM -0700 7/29/02, Pedro Silva wrote:
>Thanks for you comment, but I believe this will work in C#. As it
>says in the article you linked to below, "The consensus proposal
>extends the semantics for volatile so that the system will not allow
>a write of a volatile to be reordered with respect to any previous
>read or write, and a read of a volatile cannot be reordered with
>respect to any following read or write."
>
>While that may not work correctly in the JVM, that is the way
>volatile is implemented in the .NET Framework. At least, that's the
>description I read in the C# programmer's reference for the volatile
>keyword
>(http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/csref/html/vclrfvolatile.asp?frame=true).
>
>- Pedro
-------------------------------
JavaMemoryModel mailing list - http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 13 2005 - 07:00:40 EDT