[concurrency-interest] Semantics of compareAndSwapX

Andrew Haley aph at redhat.com
Fri Feb 14 10:27:15 EST 2014

On 02/14/2014 01:51 PM, Stephan Diestelhorst wrote:
> I am currently following up inside ARM about this, stay tuned.  AFAICS,
> this should still be safe for basic locks.

Please note that this is not so much about locks but about CAS.  I
don't think that locks are such a problem, but (arguably) CAS seems to
require more than locks do because of Java semantics.


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list