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

Martin Buchholz martinrb at google.com
Mon Jun 5 21:59:11 EDT 2017

I'm still hoping for a failed CAS to NOT be equivalent to a volatile write,
but instead a volatile read, as in C++.

For low-level lock-free linked list manipulating code
(LinkedTransferQueue), I would not use updateAndGet but instead write my
own CAS loops.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/attachments/20170605/6476a761/attachment.html>

More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list