[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.


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.

-------------- 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