[concurrency-interest] Concurrency-interest Digest, Vol 138, Issue 1

Aleksey Shipilev aleksey.shipilev at oracle.com
Sun Jul 10 14:05:35 EDT 2016

On 07/08/2016 11:32 PM, Sergey Zaytsev wrote:
> Well, I think I got the whole point, which might be very obvious to
> lots of people but might also be useful for those who is still
> looking for precise expiation. I hope Aleksey and Matrin could verify
> the following: the reason we use _actions_ judging about program’s
> possible result is because we care about real execution. When things
> are going on. Of course, those executions come from program’
> statements and here is the connection point. But statements are
> static.They do nothing until being executed. And ‘cause results only
> possible after execution we use term _action_ pointing out only those
> important for discussion, leaving statement behind.

Yes, that sounds reasonable.

In memory model, we want to capture the fact that we have indeed written
and read a particular value to/from the particular location. Program (as
the set of statements) itself is a very cumbersome abstraction to
capture that.

We also don't really care about statements that do not affect memory,
this is why it is handy to enumerate the actual actions (reading/writing
variables, locking/unlocking) that interest us, leaving the rest of the
program alone.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/attachments/20160710/62651af8/attachment.sig>

More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list