Re: JavaMemoryModel: Are correctly synchronized code fragment executions SC?

• Next message: Vijay Saraswat: "Re: JavaMemoryModel: Question about the semantics of volatile"
• Previous message: Sarita Adve: "RE: [Fwd: Re: JavaMemoryModel: Question about the semantics of volatile]"
• In reply to: Vijay Saraswat: "Re: JavaMemoryModel: Are correctly synchronized code fragment executions SC?"
• Next in thread: Bill Pugh: "Re: JavaMemoryModel: Are correctly synchronized code fragment executions SC?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

> Hmm... interesting. Perhaps the type system should be extended so that a
> programmer can specify that a method argument must be volatile.

The problem with this is that method arguments are local variables, and
treating a local variable as if it is volatile has no meaningful
semantics.

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

• Next message: Vijay Saraswat: "Re: JavaMemoryModel: Question about the semantics of volatile"
• Previous message: Sarita Adve: "RE: [Fwd: Re: JavaMemoryModel: Question about the semantics of volatile]"
• In reply to: Vijay Saraswat: "Re: JavaMemoryModel: Are correctly synchronized code fragment executions SC?"
• Next in thread: Bill Pugh: "Re: JavaMemoryModel: Are correctly synchronized code fragment executions SC?"
• 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 - 07:01:00 EDT