> > will break because the top of the stack doesn't change between the first > > and second lock. Therefore, the first unlock will completely free the > > lock since the vm can't tell the difference between the two. So, other > > than pushing something on the stack on every synchronized, i don't think > > theres much you can do without rewriting the whole locking system. > > Wow, that sounds too bad to be true. Can we solve this with > a recursion counter or something?
Yeah, but that ends up being so much like the latte/ibm locking approach it seems silly to not just go all the way. Also, it wouldn't fix any problems the stack approach has with optimizations (delayed pop and so on). > -Archie tim stack _______________________________________________ kaffe mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kaffe.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kaffe