Attila Szegedi wrote: > No. You know your JVM bytecodes, Charlie - the only incrementing > bytecode in existence is IINC and it only works on an integer local > variable.
Yes, I know that...but I hadn't dug into what code was actually being generated for a field++. Looking now they don't appear to be any different. Either way it doesn't give me any answers... > Pretty much the only sane implementation of ++ on a static field would > be: > > GETSTATIC someClass.someField > ICONST_1 > IADD > PUTSTATIC someClass.someField > > Not even volatility of the field will ensure atomic increment > operations, as the value must be temporarily held on the thread > operand stack. > > If you want atomic updates, java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger > might give you what you need on Java 5 and above. I'm more interested in finding out why the performance is so bad with multiple threads under Java 6. I don't need atomic updates, for which I would certainly use AtomicInteger instead. - Charlie --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM Languages" group. To post to this group, send email to jvm-languages@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
