[concurrency-interest] Atomic assignment

Gregg Wonderly gregg at cytetech.com
Fri May 8 10:27:24 EDT 2009


So will the compiler be changed to not allow volatile to exist on double/long 
declarations since it does not work?  Or might there be a warning that volatile 
does not produce atomic results on all statements that assign to or reference a 
double/long value?

Sigh...

Gregg Wonderly

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
> 
> Thanks
> David Holmes
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: concurrency-interest-bounces at cs.oswego.edu
>> [mailto:concurrency-interest-bounces at cs.oswego.edu]On Behalf Of Mark
>> Thornton
>> Sent: Friday, 8 May 2009 7:29 AM
>> To: concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
>> Subject: [concurrency-interest] Atomic assignment
>>
>>
>>
>> I was sure that the problem of (non)atomic assignment to volatile longs
>> and doubles had been fixed, but this bug report suggests otherwise:
>>
>> http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4023233
>>
>> Anyone know for sure?
>>
>> Mark Thornton
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Concurrency-interest mailing list
>> Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
>> http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Concurrency-interest mailing list
> Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
> http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
> 
> 



More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list