Sean Legassick wrote:
> If it were not for Jon's recent
> posting regarding the unsafety of double-checked locking you could use
> that to prevent the synchronization overhead after the first call. Alas
> though this optimisation is to be no more... :-(
This is a modern-day riff on the old 'If a tree falls...' question isn't
it?
"If you don't know a compiler can reorder instructions to invalidate a
lock avoidance algorithm, is the code still threadsafe?"
:->
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Velocity : it's not just a good idea. It should be the law.
http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
