> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Sylvia Else
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:24 PM
> To: javamemorymodel-cs.umd.edu
> Subject: Re: JavaMemoryModel: Use-case for strong volatile
> At 05:36 PM 29/03/2004 -0500, Bill Pugh wrote:
> >You have some sort of simulation/relaxation based algorithm,
> >with a shared data structure, multiple threads that are updating
> >the data structure and multiple threads reading the data structure.
> >The updating threads do not have to synchronize among themselves,
> >since they are updating disjoint sections of the shared data
> >The reading threads don't need to see any particular iteration of the
> >update, or the most recent update. They just want to see
> data that isn't
> >too far out of date.
> >With the strong interpretation, it suffices to have a shared
> volatile, and
> >each updating thread periodically write to the volatile, and
> each reading
> >thread periodically read the volatile.
> Sorry, but I'm a little sceptical here. Does even this use
> case have a
> non-contrived implementation that is DRF under the strong
> definition, but
> not under the weak one?
I believe we can prove that the class of programs that are data-race-free is
identical for the strong and weak semantics.
JavaMemoryModel mailing list - http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 13 2005 - 07:01:02 EDT