> You know...something seemed odd about it, but I was going to
> go with it anyway...I'm still pretty sure that an increment
> operation is not atomic, but I can't be sure.
>
> Regardless, the example statement given in the original post
> was something like:
>
> x = y++;
>
> And I'm almost 100% certain that's not atomic, as the
> increment of y and assignment to x are two separate operations.
The increment of y is not guaranteed to be atomic as it involves
a read, an increment and then a write. These operations may be
interleaved with operations on another thread. This is before
you have the assigment to x.
The iinc operator is only for local method variables and therefore
not visible in other threads. If you change the code to the following
then you should see different bytecode.
public class Test {
private int x ; // instance variable
public int testInc() {
x++;
return x;
}
public int testAdd() {
x = x + 1;
return x;
}
}
Kev
Kevin Conner
Orchard Information Systems Limited
Newcastle Technopole, Kings Manor
Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 6PA. United Kingdom
Registered in England, Number 1900078
Tel: +44 (0) 191-2032536 Fax: +44 (0) 191 2302515
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
