On Mar 17, 2004, at 5:33 PM, David Holmes wrote:
> I'm not sure I agree that this is necessary - or necessarily a good
> The interrupt tells the thread to wakeup. Once the thread wakes up any
> access to data shared between the interruptor and interruptee should be
> correctly synchronized as normal.
> What you are proposing essentially amounts to making the "interrupted"
> "field" of a thread behave as a volatile - right?
Yes. The idea is that someone might do something like
* Interrupter thread
- store some data as to why the thread is being interrupted
- interrupt the thread
* Interupted thread
- receive interrupt
- look at data explaining why it was interrupted.
In general, I think any way of reliably communicating between threads
induce a happens-before edge. Certainly, I think programmers may expect
like the above is reasonable.
JavaMemoryModel mailing list - http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 13 2005 - 07:01:00 EDT