This is the mail archive of the java@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Double check locking

From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
To: Bryce McKinlay <bryce at waitaki dot otago dot ac dot nz>
Cc: Jeff Sturm <jsturm at one-point dot com>, "Boehm, Hans" <hans_boehm at hp dot com>, java at gcc dot gnu dot org, boehm at acm dot org
Date: 11 Jun 2002 09:32:12 -0600
Subject: Re: Double check locking
References: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10206070037400.31022-100000@mars.deadcafe.org> <87n0u2o4ry.fsf@creche.redhat.com> <3D057FA7.7080609@waitaki.otago.ac.nz>
Reply-to: tromey at redhat dot com

>>>>> "Bryce" == Bryce McKinlay <bryce@waitaki.otago.ac.nz> writes:

Bryce> (BTW last time I checked gcj was only doing this type of check
Bryce> in some cases. It still generates a lot of unconditional
Bryce> _Jv_InitClass calls too)

I think the check in the _Jv_InitClass that gets inlined isn't safe.
At least, it doesn't make any apparent attempt to be safe.

Tom

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Double check locking
  - From: Tom Tromey

References:
- Re: heap fragmentation?
  - From: Jeff Sturm
- Re: heap fragmentation?
  - From: Tom Tromey
- Re: Double check locking
  - From: Bryce McKinlay

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]