On 7/03/2015 6:49 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
A wee code review fer ya:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8074578
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk9/Unsafe-CAS-spec/
Sorry Martin but this is neither accurate nor meaningful. It isn't
accurate because the actual Atomic::cmpxchg operations have full
bi-directional fences, and in the long case if locking is used you get
locking related barriers not volatile access barriers. It isn't
meaningful because you haven't said what variable the volatile semantics
apply to (not that that would help in the lock-based case).
David
