[concurrency-interest] AtomicReference.updateAndGet() mandatory updating
oleksandr.otenko at gmail.com
Thu Jun 1 14:10:53 EDT 2017
After “that” store in which order from JMM?
> On 1 Jun 2017, at 17:58, Gil Tene <gil at azul.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 1, 2017, at 9:53 AM, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> It can. But the CAS failed *because* of that store [it is not allowed to spuriously fail], so the CAS is after that store. And things that are after the CAS are therefore also after that store.
>> Andrew Haley
>> Java Platform Lead Engineer
>> Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com>
>> EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671
> Concurrency-interest mailing list
> Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
More information about the Concurrency-interest