[concurrency-interest] on happens-before formalism
pavel.rappo at gmail.com
Fri Feb 3 02:17:56 EST 2012
Then I think it's very different from Lamport's definition of happened-before which they reference to.
Maybe that's why Lamport calls it "happenED-before" (not "happenS-before").
Btw, there's such thing as strict partial order, which I guess in this case is more suitable. It's irreflexive, asymmetric and transitive.
On 3 Feb 2012, at 09:16, Qingzhou Luo wrote:
> I think they did mean reflexive.
> See partial order definition:
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Pavel Rappo <pavel.rappo at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been reading "SPECIAL POPL ISSUE The Java Memory Model" by Jeremy
> Manson, William Pugh and Sarita Adve.
> There's one (yet) thing seems strange to me. Though I think it's actually a
> typo it's still worth mentioning.
> page. 8, 2.1: "...Note that all of this means that happens-before is a
> partial order: it is reflexive, transitive and anti-symmetric..."
> Am I right saying authors actually meant "irreflexive"?
> Sincerely yours, Pavel Rappo.
> Concurrency-interest mailing list
> Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
> Qingzhou Luo
> Department of Computer Science
> University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign
More information about the Concurrency-interest