It's not only about naming. So yes, I'd like the name weakCompareAndSet to be the sequentially consistent version, BUT I'd also expect the next more relaxed version to be memory_order_acq_rel which we don't provide.
I was surprised that weakCompareAndSetAcquire actually does relaxed writes http://download.java.net/java/jdk9/docs/api/java/lang/invoke/VarHandle.html#weakCompareAndSetAcquire-java.lang.Object...- I don't have a good intuition about how useful non-sequentially-consistent CASes are. On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:00 AM, Paul Sandoz <paul.san...@oracle.com> wrote: > > > On 30 Jun 2016, at 09:37, Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On 30/06/16 02:20, Martin Buchholz wrote: > >> VarHandle.compareAndSet is strong in two ways - non-spurious and > >> sequentially consistent. > >> > >> VarHandle.weakCompareAndSet is weak in both these ways. > >> (That seems like a mistake to me. > >> The fact that j.u.c. Atomic classes are a precedent for this seems > >> unfortunate.) > > > > Is your disagreement purely about the name? > > I was also wondering if that was the source of disgreement. > > Paul. > > > We have all of the variants we need. > > >
