> So I'm arguing that if notify/interrupt reordering is allowed within a
> thread, then the proposed specification change does not fit the bill. What
> should it say instead?
It should suffice to add to the specs for both notify and interrupt:
The effects of a series of invocations of Object.notify and/or
Thread.interrupt by a given thread occur in the order in which they
are invoked.
(Or maybe some less awkward wording.)
This way, the spec for wait can still only add the phrase "for a
notification".
Do you see any problems with this?
-Doug
-------------------------------
JavaMemoryModel mailing list - http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 13 2005 - 07:00:55 EDT