Timothy Stack writes:
> The problem is that kaffe uses the stack to keep track of locks/unlocks,
> so something like:
>
> synchronized( lock )
> {
> synchronized( lock )
> {
> }
> }
>
> 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?
-Archie
__________________________________________________________________________
Archie Cobbs * Packet Design * http://www.packetdesign.com
_______________________________________________
kaffe mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://kaffe.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kaffe
