On 8/26/11 11:06 , Stuart McCulloch wrote:
On 26 Aug 2011, at 03:57, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
I think that is correct.
Assuming the 'next' is volatile, right?
I don't believe 'next' has to be volatile, since the AtomicReference acts as a
memory barrier
Ok, goodie. Then I'll commit that. On my system the testInvokeMixin
performance test went from 19M/sec to 26M/sec with just changing this
instance pool. Low hanging fruit and all that...
/Rickard
_______________________________________________
qi4j-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
