OK, I'll try my hand as well at making forward progress:
diff --git a/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Object.java
b/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Object.java
--- a/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Object.java
+++ b/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Object.java
@@ -334,7 +334
On 12/08/2017 10:58 AM, Hans Boehm wrote:
Any chance the example code in the documentation that is quoted below
could also be adjusted to e.g.
synchronized (obj) {
while () {
;
obj.wait();
}
... // Perform action appropriate to con
Thanks for working on Object.wait. Doc writing is never easy, especially
in Object.java.
In the original proposed patch, the word "also" ends up weird, because
spurious wakeup *was* in the list above; we need to do something about that.
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Stuart Marks
wrote:
> T
Any chance the example code in the documentation that is quoted below could
also be adjusted to e.g.
synchronized (obj) {
while () {
;
obj.wait();
}
... // Perform action appropriate to condition
}
and similarly for the nanos case?
I
On 12/08/2017 5:14 AM, Stuart Marks wrote:
In general, I'm in favor of ensuring that wording in various bits of the
specification is well aligned. I don't see specifically what would need
to be improved in this case, though.
If you start trying to align things too much you end up rewriting a h
In general, I'm in favor of ensuring that wording in various bits of the
specification is well aligned. I don't see specifically what would need to be
improved in this case, though.
Can we align the wording with existing wording in either LockSupport or
Condition?
The various LockSupport.par
There's also an existing paragraph in Condition that goes
"When waiting upon a Condition, a spurious ... "
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Martin Buchholz
wrote:
> Can we align the wording with existing wording in either LockSupport or
> Condition?
>
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Stuart
Can we align the wording with existing wording in either LockSupport or
Condition?
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Stuart Marks
wrote:
> This is an old spec bug. The Object.wait spec lists several different
> reasons a thread could be awakened, but it omits spurious wakeup -- even
> though spu
On 8/11/17 11:25 AM, Stuart Marks wrote:
diff -r 27b08ab97a60 -r ebd66cd27b29
src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Object.java
--- a/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Object.javaThu Aug 03
09:04:47 2017 -0700
+++ b/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Object.javaFri Aug 11
11:24
Looks fine Stuart
> On Aug 11, 2017, at 2:25 PM, Stuart Marks wrote:
>
> This is an old spec bug. The Object.wait spec lists several different reasons
> a thread could be awakened, but it omits spurious wakeup -- even though
> spurious wakeup is described later on. The fix is simply to add sp
10 matches
Mail list logo
