> > Rule 1: No fusion may result in the possibility that more locks are
> > simultaneously held at any given time than in the original code.
>
> I understand the intent of rule #1, but I don't think its wording expresses
> that intent
Here's a better version, that might reduce to other existing rules:
Rule 1: The relative ordering of monitorenter and monitorexits across
different target objects must be preserved.
-Doug
-------------------------------
JavaMemoryModel mailing list - http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 13 2005 - 07:00:29 EDT