At 12:57 PM 11/12/2003, Jeremy Manson wrote:
> > Since no one has picked up on this, I decided to have a look at whether or
> > not the absence of a total order could be visible to a program. My first
> > problem is in deciding how the existence of a total order interacts with
> > the happens before rules. I've concluded that the specification implies
> > that they do, and that in the example, either X hb Y, or Y hb X.
>
>I'm afraid this is not quite right. The happens-before relationships are
>defined in Section 5 of the community draft. Nowhere is it stated that a
>happens-before relationship can be inferred if one action happens to
>preceed another in the total order over synchronization actions.
OK, but then I'm left with the question of whether or not the non-existence
of a total order could be visible to the program. If it cannot, then why is
a total order stated to exist? On the other hand, if a lack of total order
has detectable consequences, then my objection stands, even though my
example doesn't.
Sylvia.
-------------------------------
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