[concurrency-interest] Re: synchronized vs ReentrantLock semantic
gregg at cytetech.com
Mon Jun 13 23:16:40 EDT 2005
David Holmes wrote:
>>Gregg Wonderly wrote:
>>When you use this lock to protect reading and writing of other values,
>>those values must be volatile if you want their changed state to
>>propagate between threads/processors etc.
> Absolutely NOT! You do not need to have the shared data that is protected by
> a Lock - any kind - be declared volatile. The Lock implementations take care
> of all the required memory model semantics.
> Sorry Gregg but I have to make sure this misconception is entirely squashed
> (both here are on the referenced forum).
Okay, then this is sure not clear to me either. I guess I'm really
confused now. I would suggest there should be some even more explicit
wording about all the specific steps and the specific ties into the
I guess I need to go back and reread some things to glean what I seem to
have forgot or overlooked...
My profuse appologies for making such a misstatement...
More information about the Concurrency-interest