I still vote for expressing all the constraints for finite executions,
and then including a statement about allowing infinite executions
only if there are no infinite prefixes, and all finite prefixes are
allowed.
Section 7.6 already is phrased in terms of finite executions.
It's not clear top me that either this or the current statement implies
"weak fairness" in any real sense, but I'd be OK with leaving that as an
informal statement.
Hans
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-javamemorymodel@cs.umd.edu
> [mailto:owner-javamemorymodel@cs.umd.edu]On Behalf Of Bill Pugh
> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 11:56 AM
> To: sadve@cs.uiuc.edu
> Cc: 'javamemorymodel-cs.umd.edu'
> Subject: Re: JavaMemoryModel: Weak fairness in the Java memory model
>
>
> OK, we're going to have to adjust this.
>
> Jeremy, Sarita and I are working on something, give us another day
> or so to sanity check it.
>
> The intent is still the same:
> * Not require any thread scheduling fairness
> * Prevent transformations such as hoisting
> a volatile read out of a loop (in the general
> case).
>
> Bill
>
> -------------------------------
> JavaMemoryModel mailing list -
> http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel
>
-------------------------------
JavaMemoryModel mailing list - http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 13 2005 - 07:01:04 EDT