On Sep 27, 2006, at 4:04 PM, Weldon Washburn wrote:
On 9/26/06, Evgueni Brevnov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/27/06, Andrey Chernyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (3)
> One more lock is added - hythread_lib_lock. How is that differ from
> the hythread_global_lock that we already have? Each extra lock
to the
> system may add more possibilities for deadlocks, as well as can
> negatively impact the scalability (unless some of the existing
locks
> are split).
hythread_lib_lock acquires exactly the same lock as
hythread_global_lock. Probably I miss something but we need to be
compatible with IBM threading library now. This library has such
function. That's why I added it. Sounds right?
Well, this sort of, kind of sounds right but not quite. Its a
little more
subtle than being compatible with IBM threading library. The first
goal is
to identify the parts of IBM threading library that are JVM
independent. It
makes sense for DRLVM to be compatible with the independent
parts. This
should be a nobrainer.
It's not IBM's threading library. It's Harmony's threading library. :)
geir
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
