> A bound on infinitely stale reads and infinitely unflushed writes
> would not be too hard to define into the semantics without the need
> for any syntax changes. The simplest example of the problem comes up
> with the following example:
>
> initially, quit = false
>
> Thread 1: Thread 2:
> quit = true; while (!quit) do_something();
> exit();
>
> Under all of the current proposed semantics, thread 2 might loop
> forever.
I think I'd rather guarantee that thread 2 will be optimized into an
infinite loop (regardless of the nature of "do_something"), or at
least have the compiler warn about this possibility.
-Doug
-------------------------------
JavaMemoryModel mailing list - http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 13 2005 - 07:00:23 EDT