Hi: On 07 Dec 2010, at 17:23, Dave Cunningham wrote: > It is currently implemented in a more efficient way -- with a single global > lock. It is more efficient because not all of the activities are blocked -- > only those that try to enter an atomic section while another activity is in > an atomic section. This is only actually compatible with the stop the world > semantics if all shared variable accesses are inside an atomic block. This > is of course the difference between weak/strong semantics for atomic > sections. We may well forget to mention that in the spec, in which case we > should add it, because requiring strong semantics is way too restrictive. Might be outdated by now, but I vaguely remember that I was told in May that there is another corner case worth mentioning: In case the atomic block works on a single integer for instance, then it is compiled down to something like compare-and-swap, sidestepping the global lock, no?
Would be good if the current implementation strategy is somehow documented along with the spec. Best regards Stefan -- Stefan Marr Software Languages Lab Vrije Universiteit Brussel Pleinlaan 2 / B-1050 Brussels / Belgium http://soft.vub.ac.be/~smarr Phone: +32 2 629 2974 Fax: +32 2 629 3525 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ What happens now with your Lotus Notes apps - do you make another costly upgrade, or settle for being marooned without product support? Time to move off Lotus Notes and onto the cloud with Force.com, apps are easier to build, use, and manage than apps on traditional platforms. Sign up for the Lotus Notes Migration Kit to learn more. http://p.sf.net/sfu/salesforce-d2d _______________________________________________ X10-users mailing list X10-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/x10-users
