Re: JavaMemoryModel: Question about the semantics of volatile

From: Vijay Saraswat (vijay@saraswat.org)
Date: Thu Mar 18 2004 - 05:14:30 EST


CCM semantics can handle either formulation. I suspect this decision
will not makes a sharp separation between competing models.

If weak supports the common programming idioms then why not mandate
weak, with the justification that it requires less of the implementation?

Best,
Vijay

Bill Pugh wrote:

> OK, a question has come up regarding the semantics of volatile.
> There is a point on which there are two different interpretations.
> As far as the model goes, it can handle either interpretation.
>
> So we'd like to open the question up to discussion and debate by
> the broader JMM community.
>
> For each volatile, there is a total order over all accesses to that
> volatile.
>
> Strong interpretation:
> There is a happens-before (or release/acquire) relationship from
> each write to each latter read of that volatile.
>
> Weak interpretation:
> There is a happens-before (or release/acquire) relationship from
> each write to each latter read of that volatile _that sees that
> write_.
>

-------------------------------
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