At 7:50 PM +0000 6/24/99, David G. Wonnacott wrote:
>Is there some reason to consider (a) two provably equivalent models,
>(b) one unified model (the current state of affairs?), and (c) a JVM
>model and a statement that the JLS model is whatever translates into
>the JVM model, but not (d) a JLS model and a rule of the form "any
>compiler/JVM pair must preserve this model".
>
> >From (d) we would then derive a rule about the standard JVM that
>ensures any bytecodes are compilant, but we also have the option of
>producing more sophisticated compiler/JVM variants, based on future
>experience (these could even become parts of future versions of the
>JVM standard).
The problem is that compilers and VM's don't come in matched pairs.
Bytecode generated by any compiler should run on any JVM.
> Variants would have to tag bytecodes to make sure they
>weren't executed in a mismatched JVM, but I assume there's already a
>mechanism for this.
It wouldn't be valid Java is tags changed the semantics of the bytecodes.
Bill Pugh
-------------------------------
This is the JavaMemoryModel mailing list, managed by Majordomo 1.94.4.
To send a message to the list, email JavaMemoryModel@cs.umd.edu
To send a request to the list, email majordomo@cs.umd.edu and put
your request in the body of the message (use the request "help" for help).
For more information, visit http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 13 2005 - 07:00:12 EDT