On 2010-12-11, at 4:38 PM, Rémi Forax wrote: > I think it's possible to use a synchronized block enclosing the setTargets > and the corresponding syncs > instead of syncTargets. From my experience, changing something on a metaclass > often require to propagate changes on subclasses. This can't be done using > atomics > so you already need such synchronized block.
Maybe I misunderstood. I was assuming that syncTargets was a VM operation (at safepoint.) _______________________________________________ mlvm-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
