Re: finitequeue heavy synchronization

Thanks a lot. I knew that one but I forgot it.

It's kind'of important, because it could causes a lot of synchronization overhead for something as
simple as going to memory instead of registers. Using "volatile" seams the clean solution.

So, which JVM are "volatile" compliant?
(we may sacrifice portability for performance)

how about Sun's 1.4.x on linux intel?
how about Sun's 1.4.x on w2k?
how about IBM's 1.4.x in linux intel?

or maybe it is easier to mention which one are not?

Thanks.



> In principle making queueSize 
> volatile would also do the trick, but very few implementations of 
> volatile semantics have been correct until quite recently, so the use 
> of synchronization is the safer bet from a portability POV.


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf