4 AM
> To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [classlib][concurrent] Next IBM VME request
>
> Just revisiting this thread -- and even I can't decipher what I wrote as
> I ran out the door.
>
> Let me try again. Rather than put sun.misc.Unsafe into luni
Tim Ellison wrote:
Just revisiting this thread -- and even I can't decipher what I wrote as
I ran out the door.
Let me try again. Rather than put sun.misc.Unsafe into luni-kernel I
suggest that we have an o.a.h.kernel.vm.Risky[1] type containing just
the relevant subset of operations that we
Just revisiting this thread -- and even I can't decipher what I wrote as
I ran out the door.
Let me try again. Rather than put sun.misc.Unsafe into luni-kernel I
suggest that we have an o.a.h.kernel.vm.Risky[1] type containing just
the relevant subset of operations that we need for concurrent to
Tim Ellison wrote:
Nathan Beyer wrote:
For those kind souls working that help release the IBM VME, I'd like to ask
for an implementation of the "sun.misc.Unsafe" interface for the next
release to facilitate the 'concurrent' modules continued development. As
such, the only portion of the Unsaf
Nathan Beyer wrote:
> For those kind souls working that help release the IBM VME, I'd like to ask
> for an implementation of the "sun.misc.Unsafe" interface for the next
> release to facilitate the 'concurrent' modules continued development. As
> such, the only portion of the Unsafe class that woul
