Hello Tom, Thank you very much for you detailed and simple explanation on what the problem with multithread programs analysis is. We have certain ideas for a special analysis but it is quite heavy for now and is not planned for Ariadna.
Again, I'd like to stay clear on what is inspection results status. One only finds out where the problem MIGHT be. The final decision is always up to the programmer. -- Best regards, Maxim Shafirov JetBrains, Inc / IntelliJ Software http://www.intellij.com "Develop with pleasure!" TW> It isn't the JVM that causes the problem with double-checked initalizers, it TW> is the spec (and it is also multi-processors systems). TW> However the problem with double-checked initializers isn't really the issue TW> that you are bringing up here. What you are asking for is code inspection TW> that is "thread aware." This would require code inspection to understand TW> the impact that multiple threads have on your code. This, too, has been TW> discussed on the list recently. If you start to take threading into account TW> with code inspection you quickly run in to an impossible problem. Think TW> about the impact of threading on code. Idea has no way of knowing if your TW> code is going to be running in multiple threads or not. That means it can't TW> really do any analysis on any non-local variables because the values could TW> always be changing behind your back. That wouldn't be very useful code TW> inspection. So instead, Idea assumes you're running in a single-threaded TW> environment. Maybe, with some though, we could figure out what part of code TW> inspection isn't' very useful in a multi-threaded environment and IntelliJ TW> could provide options to turn quickly turn them all off. TW> -Tom TW> -- TW> [EMAIL PROTECTED] TW> "But we don't talk about it TW> we just become shadows of ourselves" TW> -Duncan Sheik, In the Absence of Sun >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Cedric ROUVRAIS [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 4:23 PM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: RE: [Eap-list] 614: Code Inspection, constant >>conditions & NPEs >> >> >>Hi Max, >> >>Guess i missed the discussion, however just because the >>implementation is >>faulty it doesn't mean that it will always be faulty, some day it will >>corrected. >>Having an ide that is compliant to the spec is better than >>having a ide that >>is compliant to the defects of the jvm, imo. >> >>a++ Cedric >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On >>Behalf Of Maxim >>Shafirov >>Sent: jeudi 28 mars 2002 17:59 >>To: Cedric ROUVRAIS >>Subject: Re: [Eap-list] 614: Code Inspection, constant >>conditions & NPEs >> >> >>Hello Cedric, >> >>This topic had already been discussed in eap several days ago. As the >>matter of fact double synchronization does not makes what it intended >>to in the current implementation of JVM. >> >>-- >>Best regards, >>Maxim Shafirov >>JetBrains, Inc / IntelliJ Software >>http://www.intellij.com >>"Develop with pleasure!" >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Eap-list mailing list >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>http://www.intellij.com/mailman/listinfo/eap-list >> TW> _______________________________________________ TW> Eap-list mailing list TW> [EMAIL PROTECTED] TW> http://www.intellij.com/mailman/listinfo/eap-list _______________________________________________ Eap-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellij.com/mailman/listinfo/eap-list
