http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1490801/diff/11002/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/PersistentUnitCache.java File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/PersistentUnitCache.java (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1490801/diff/11002/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/PersistentUnitCache.java#newcode348 dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/PersistentUnitCache.java:348: boolean inProgress = purgeInProgress.getAndSet(true); Hmmm....I don't think this is quite right still....you atomically set inProgress to true here, then do some work, then initialize purgeTaskStatus on line 272. Meanwhile, another thread can come in and see that you've set inProgress to true already, and try to reference purgeTaskStatus (but it might not have been initialized yet). I guess, I'm not sure why the purgeTaskStatus.get() call is needed at all....If it's inProgress, another thread should simply return immediately, no? What's the reason for the purgeTaskStatus future, if we don't do anything with it when we call get() on it? If you need to check the purgeTaskStatus, then you need a synchronized block that limits getting/setting it. http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1490801/diff/11002/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/PersistentUnitCache.java#newcode353 dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/PersistentUnitCache.java:353: Thread.currentThread().interrupt(); I really don't think this is necessary or correct here. It implies that if you are interrupted here, you must propagate that interruption further up. But we don't have any interrupt handling mechanism in place here (or above). http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1490801/ -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
