[concurrency-interest] Propagation ofsignalstonon-interruptedthread

Martin Buchholz martinrb at google.com
Tue Nov 15 09:57:16 EST 2011


On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 18:37, David Holmes <davidcholmes at aapt.net.au>wrote:

> **
> One example of some broken code is not very compelling. This code doesn't
> even handle timeout correctly. I strongly suspect the author of this code
> was not relying on no-spurious-wakeups but was simply completely ignorant
> of them and so would have used the same style of code even with Object.wait.
>

Sure.

My argument is not about careful programmers who have thoughtfully read the
spec, whose number is vanishingly small.  This is all about real-world
crappy code in production that happens to work today, and will fail
unpredictably under stress if you withdraw the de-facto guarantees.

If Object.wait has also been providing the de-facto guarantee in recent
releases, I would like its spec updated as well to provide the stronger
guarantee.  But my argument is stronger for j.u.c.locks, since everyone
uses the same implementation in practice.

Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/attachments/20111115/cfe011e5/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list