On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Sascha Brawer wrote:
vaguely related to the current thread about Thread/VMThread proposal on
the Classpath discussion list, I would like to ask whether the following
pattern is correct with respect to the Java memory model. I believe so,
but I would like to be sure.
This
Jeff Sturm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Tue, 29 Jul 2003 14:10:11 -0400:
http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel/DoubleCheckedLocking.html
Thanks for the great reference.
-- Sascha
Sascha Brawer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.dandelis.ch/people/brawer/
As I understand it, if the proposal in JSR 133 is adopted,
it will be sufficient to declare the result field volatile for
conforming VMs.
No the result field is just a local variable - declaring it volatile
won't do anything. Sascha's code correctly defined foo as volatile.
There is actually
3 matches
Mail list logo
