Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> David Holmes wrote:
> > notify() is sufficient.
> Probably not.
That depends on the definition of "sufficient". But I'm inclined to
agree with you - the hole is an unnacceptable (to me) change in the
semantics and that would require either that the VM not let an
interrupted thread consume a notify, or else a notifyAll() must be
Looks like this issue is reopened.
> > That seems to preclude the problem to me - but words
> > are always open to interpretation.
> Yeah. Pls take a look at:
:) I side with Patrick and Caspar on that one. But the very fact a
debate occurred means the spec needs changing to clarify the intent.
But the problem with prose based specifications is that they are
always subject to interpretation and the more words you add to clarify
things the more words that might be interpreted differently.
The annoying thing is that it is the uncertainties of the underlying
pthread and OS primitives that has caused the uncertainties to appear
at the Java/JVM level. :(
JavaMemoryModel mailing list - http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 13 2005 - 07:00:49 EDT