On 12/19/2012 10:45 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: > On memory model rules then there is is an outstanding bug to update the > buffer spec with at least minimal properties. Doug might remember the > discussion with Dave Dice about this a few years ago. I've always meant > to do it but it never got to the top of the list.
Aha, thanks, Alan. Does anyone has the CR number handy? Searching through bugtrack has a lots of false hits. > That aside, I'm not aware of any discussion about the atomicity issue > that you are concerned about now. As buffers are accessed directly in > native code and by system calls then I think you would be limited to > only specifying the put and get methods. I don't think there are problems with full-width ops in non-BB implementations. The problematic area seems to be ByteBuffer allocated on heap. Direct ByteBuffer seems to be atomic. -Aleksey.
