[concurrency-interest] AtomicReference.updateAndGet() mandatory updating

Andrew Haley aph at redhat.com
Thu Jun 1 12:53:59 EDT 2017

On 01/06/17 16:19, Gil Tene wrote:
> I think the property is that a failing CAS is strictly after the store that failed it, period. Regardless of whether or not that store was volatile.

How is that even possible?  The store that fails a CAS can propagate
to different threads later: it's not part of the total order.  Perhaps
I'm missing something.

Andrew Haley
Java Platform Lead Engineer
Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com>
EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671

More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list