On 4/2/08, Charles Oliver Nutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > John Wilson wrote: > > That is rather odd. > > > > Shouldn't count be volatile? > > > > If it's declared as volatile does that make any difference? > > > I had not tried it because I expected volatile would only make it > slower. And in this case, the code in question didn't really care about > perfect accuracy for the counter since it's just a rough guide. But > here's numbers with volatile on my machine:
Interesting. I thought that the runtime system might have inferred that count should have been volatile but you numbers show that this is not the case. [snip] > I tried another non-volatile run using i += 1 rather than i++ and the > numbers were almost identical, with Java 6 severely degrading with > multiple threads running and Java 5 improving. > It would be interesting to try: tmp = i; tmp++; i = tmp; for tmp as a local variable and again for tmp as a public instance field. (I'm sorry I can't do the tests for mystelf as I don't have access to a muti core machine here). John Wilson --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM Languages" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
