[concurrency-interest] DirectByteBuffers and reachabilityFence

Chris Vest mr.chrisvest at gmail.com
Fri Dec 18 04:44:06 EST 2015


Only if we never have to pay the cost of allocating the arguments array.

Cheers,
Chris

> On 17 Dec 2015, at 15:54, thurstonn <thurston at nomagicsoftware.com> wrote:
> 
> If possible, it would be convenient if #reachabilityFence were defined as
> varargs:
> 
> public static void reachabilityFence(Object...  refs)
> 
> as there are many cases (e.g. Hans Boehm provides one in this thread) where
> one would want to extend reachability to a set of objects to the same point. 
> I wouldn't think that any ordering guarantee need to be preserved in the
> case where multiple args were passed
> 
> I don't know the effect that might have upon the compiler
> 
> 
> 
> --
> View this message in context: http://jsr166-concurrency.10961.n7.nabble.com/DirectByteBuffers-and-reachabilityFence-tp12935p13092.html
> Sent from the JSR166 Concurrency mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> Concurrency-interest mailing list
> Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
> http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/attachments/20151218/568a2067/attachment.html>


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list