Re: JavaMemoryModel: A new box for the Java Memory model

From: Joshua Bloch (jbloch@eng.sun.com)
Date: Tue Nov 09 1999 - 22:19:11 EST

Next message: David Holmes: "RE: JavaMemoryModel: A new box for the Java Memory model"
Previous message: Joshua Bloch: "Re: JavaMemoryModel: Synchronization in the spec benchmarks"
Maybe in reply to: David Holmes: "JavaMemoryModel: A new box for the Java Memory model"
Next in thread: David Holmes: "RE: JavaMemoryModel: A new box for the Java Memory model"
Reply: David Holmes: "RE: JavaMemoryModel: A new box for the Java Memory model"
Reply: Doug Lea: "Re: JavaMemoryModel: A new box for the Java Memory model"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

>In any case extending the semantics to cover array elements would be for
>completeness only. The new semantics of volatile and final can be defined
>without any reference to arrays.

I don't get it. Do we need it or don't we?

Josh

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

Next message: David Holmes: "RE: JavaMemoryModel: A new box for the Java Memory model"
Previous message: Joshua Bloch: "Re: JavaMemoryModel: Synchronization in the spec benchmarks"
Maybe in reply to: David Holmes: "JavaMemoryModel: A new box for the Java Memory model"
Next in thread: David Holmes: "RE: JavaMemoryModel: A new box for the Java Memory model"
Reply: David Holmes: "RE: JavaMemoryModel: A new box for the Java Memory model"
Reply: Doug Lea: "Re: JavaMemoryModel: A new box for the Java Memory model"
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 - 07:00:22 EDT