Re: JavaMemoryModel: Agreement to disagree: where things stand

From: Joshua Bloch (joshua.bloch@sun.com)
Date: Mon Jul 28 2003 - 13:23:58 EDT

Next message: Bill Pugh: "Re: JavaMemoryModel: Executions I find profoundly troubling"
Previous message: Bill Pugh: "Re: JavaMemoryModel: Executions I find profoundly troubling"
In reply to: Bill Pugh: "JavaMemoryModel: Agreement to disagree: where things stand"
Next in thread: Sarita Adve: "RE: JavaMemoryModel: Agreement to disagree: where things stand"
Reply: Sarita Adve: "RE: JavaMemoryModel: Agreement to disagree: where things stand"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Bill,

I prefer the stronger model because it's more intuitive, yet weak
enough to permit reasonable compiler optimization.

Josh

-------------------------------
JavaMemoryModel mailing list - http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel

Next message: Bill Pugh: "Re: JavaMemoryModel: Executions I find profoundly troubling"
Previous message: Bill Pugh: "Re: JavaMemoryModel: Executions I find profoundly troubling"
In reply to: Bill Pugh: "JavaMemoryModel: Agreement to disagree: where things stand"
Next in thread: Sarita Adve: "RE: JavaMemoryModel: Agreement to disagree: where things stand"
Reply: Sarita Adve: "RE: JavaMemoryModel: Agreement to disagree: where things stand"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 13 2005 - 07:00:47 EDT