[concurrency-interest] Atomic assignment
mthornton at optrak.co.uk
Fri May 8 03:51:23 EDT 2009
David Holmes wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> That bug is (or became) a RFE for the spec to make all accesses to
> double/long atomic and that is not going to happen hence the "will not fix".
> There are a number of other bugs that pertain to atomic access to volatile
> long/double eg: 4247780 which was fixed back in 1.2.2
> David Holmes
By all accesses I presume you mean including things like ++, which is
reasonably well documented as not atomic.
4247780 doesn't appear to exist in the bug database.
More information about the Concurrency-interest