Synchronization article on developerWorks

Tom Tromey
Tue Jul 24 11:33:00 GMT 2001

>>>>> "Bryce" == Bryce McKinlay <> writes:

Bryce> Here's an interesting article about the costs of syncronization. 
Bryce> Especially interesting because GCJ gets mentioned in the performance 
Bryce> tests:

They use gcj 3.0, which, while a reasonable choice, also will show
more overhead than 3.1.

If you follow the `discussion' link you'll see a comment from our own
AG and a response from the paper's author, both about the gcj results.

Also, they mention something that I've been meaning to address for a
while: double-check locking.  We use this in libgcj, but everything
I've read says it is inherently broken.  We should probably go through
libgcj and remove the instances of it.


More information about the Java mailing list