On 11/21/06, Rana Dasgupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/21/06, Weldon Washburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 11/21/06, Elford, Chris L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>In general, I agree that spurious wakeups are something to be avoided by > >> the implementation where possible [personally, I'd like to see them > >> disallowed]. However, given that the spec allows spurious wakeups, it > >> could actually be a valuable development tool to have an option to > >> insert them extensively to help developers identify places where they > >> have inadequately protected themselves against true spurious wakeups. > >> Therefore, I could see this partially as a feature. > > > >Yes! I like this idea. It should not be too hard to add to drlvm when > the > >time is right. > > This makes no sense to me at all, sorry. There are possibly other ways to > develop good coding advisors. Making the VM a booby trap for all kinds of > corner cases is not one of them :-)
For a production JVM, you are right. We don't want innocent users to set off booby traps by playing around with the command line. But this feature might still make sense for an engineering debug build. -- Weldon Washburn Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division
