gmane.comp.java.jsr.166-concurrency archive

401 archived articles, newest first (page 4 of 5). Latest articles →

Re: Lazy, cached supplier: most performant mutex mechanism?
Fri, 31 Jul 2020 14:56:10 -0400
Ghadi Shayban via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17290
Re: Lazy, cached supplier: most performant mutex mechanism?
Fri, 31 Jul 2020 20:33:09 +0200
Viktor Klang via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17289
Re: Lazy, cached supplier: most performant mutex mechanism?
Fri, 31 Jul 2020 11:01:41 -0700
Benjamin Manes via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17288
Re: Lazy, cached supplier: most performant mutex mechanism?
Fri, 31 Jul 2020 19:58:26 +0200 (CEST)
Remi Forax via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17287
Lazy, cached supplier: most performant mutex mechanism?
Fri, 31 Jul 2020 13:40:21 -0400
Ghadi Shayban via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17286
Re: why LinkedBlockingQueue's unlink() not need do notEmpty.signal() just like poll() ?
Wed, 29 Jul 2020 08:56:45 -0700
Martin Buchholz via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17285
why LinkedBlockingQueue's unlink() not need do notEmpty.signal() just like poll() ?
Wed, 29 Jul 2020 22:43:57 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
Liu via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17284
Re: why AtomicInteger in LinkedBlockingQueue always use getAndIncrement?
Mon, 27 Jul 2020 18:19:45 -0700
Martin Buchholz via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17283
why AtomicInteger in LinkedBlockingQueue always use getAndIncrement?
Tue, 28 Jul 2020 08:58:52 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
Liu via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17282
Re: why ConcurrentLinkedQueue#addAll need set tail twice?
Fri, 24 Jul 2020 21:31:11 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
Liu via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17281
Re: why ConcurrentLinkedQueue#addAll need set tail twice?
Thu, 23 Jul 2020 17:45:26 -0700
Martin Buchholz via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17280
Re: why ConcurrentLinkedQueue#addAll need set tail twice?
Thu, 23 Jul 2020 18:34:22 +0100
Alex Otenko via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17279
why ConcurrentLinkedQueue#addAll need set tail twice?
Thu, 23 Jul 2020 21:38:51 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
Liu via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17278
Re: (hypothetical? bogus?) TSAN failure reported in ForkJoinPool (JDK11 and "refresh" versions)
Mon, 20 Jul 2020 16:24:43 -0400
Chris Povirk via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17277
Re: ConcurrentHashMap's clear() may make size() always incorrent
Sun, 19 Jul 2020 07:41:14 -0700
Martin Buchholz via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17276
Re: ConcurrentHashMap's clear() may make size() always incorrent
Sun, 19 Jul 2020 21:31:01 +0800
Liu via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17275
Re: ConcurrentHashMap's clear() may make size() always incorrent
Sun, 19 Jul 2020 06:49:03 -0400
Doug Lea via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17274
Re: why the last thread must sweep to check every slot again?
Sun, 19 Jul 2020 06:33:10 -0400
Doug Lea via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17273
Re: Tr : Concurrency-interest Digest, Vol 185, Issue 4
Sun, 19 Jul 2020 06:30:24 -0400
Doug Lea via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17272
Tr : Concurrency-interest Digest, Vol 185, Issue 4
Sun, 19 Jul 2020 09:15:44 +0000
Olivier Peyrusse via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17271
Re: Concurrency-interest Digest, Vol 185, Issue 5
Sun, 19 Jul 2020 00:05:30 +0800 (PHT)
info--- via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17270
Re: (hypothetical? bogus?) TSAN failure reported in ForkJoinPool (JDK11 and "refresh" versions)
Sat, 18 Jul 2020 06:33:04 -0400
Doug Lea via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17269
Re: Concurrency-interest Digest, Vol 185, Issue 4
Sat, 18 Jul 2020 18:11:27 +0800 (PHT)
info--- via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17268
ConcurrentHashMap's clear() may make size() always incorrent
Sat, 18 Jul 2020 18:01:20 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
Liu via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17267
Re: (hypothetical? bogus?) TSAN failure reported in ForkJoinPool (JDK11 and "refresh" versions)
Fri, 17 Jul 2020 14:19:53 -0400
Chris Povirk via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17266
Re: why the last thread must sweep to check every slot again?
Sat, 18 Jul 2020 00:11:55 +0800
Liu via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17265
Re: Concurrency-interest Digest, Vol 185, Issue 3
Sat, 18 Jul 2020 00:04:44 +0800 (PHT)
info--- via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17264
Re: why the last thread must sweep to check every slot again?
Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:31:14 -0400
Doug Lea via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17263
Re: (hypothetical? bogus?) TSAN failure reported in ForkJoinPool (JDK11 and "refresh" versions)
Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:23:36 -0400
Doug Lea via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17262
Re: (hypothetical? bogus?) TSAN failure reported in ForkJoinPool (JDK11 and "refresh" versions)
Fri, 17 Jul 2020 10:55:06 -0400
Chris Povirk via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17261
Re: (hypothetical? bogus?) TSAN failure reported in ForkJoinPool (JDK11 and "refresh" versions)
Thu, 16 Jul 2020 21:10:05 -0400
Chris Povirk via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17260
Re: Concurrency-interest Digest, Vol 185, Issue 2
Fri, 17 Jul 2020 06:12:30 +0800 (PHT)
info--- via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17259
Re: (hypothetical? bogus?) TSAN failure reported in ForkJoinPool (JDK11 and "refresh" versions)
Fri, 17 Jul 2020 00:04:32 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Krieger via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17258
Re: (hypothetical? bogus?) TSAN failure reported in ForkJoinPool (JDK11 and "refresh" versions)
Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:15:06 -0400
Chris Povirk via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17257
(hypothetical? bogus?) TSAN failure reported in ForkJoinPool (JDK11 and "refresh" versions)
Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:09:45 -0400
Chris Povirk via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17256
Re: Concurrency-interest Digest, Vol 185, Issue 1
Fri, 17 Jul 2020 00:05:56 +0800 (PHT)
info--- via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17255
why the last thread must sweep to check every slot again?
Thu, 16 Jul 2020 20:01:38 +0800
Liu via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17254
Re: ConcurrentSkipListMap visibility guarantees
Thu, 4 Jun 2020 23:16:33 +0000
Alexandre De Champeaux via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17253
Re: ConcurrentSkipListMap visibility guarantees
Wed, 3 Jun 2020 21:08:53 -0700
Martin Buchholz via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17252
Re: ConcurrentSkipListMap visibility guarantees
Thu, 4 Jun 2020 03:23:32 +0000
Alexandre De Champeaux via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17251
Re: ConcurrentSkipListMap visibility guarantees
Wed, 3 Jun 2020 19:10:50 -0700
Martin Buchholz via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17250
ConcurrentSkipListMap visibility guarantees
Thu, 4 Jun 2020 00:57:37 +0000
Alexandre De Champeaux via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17249
Lock Upgrading
Fri, 29 May 2020 00:09:10 +0300
"Dr Heinz M. Kabutz via Concurrency-interest" <[email protected]> • #17248
Re: Guarantees around Servlet Filter initialization that sets an instance variable?
Mon, 18 May 2020 16:53:06 +0000
"Ludwig, Mark via Concurrency-interest" <[email protected]> • #17247
Re: Guarantees around Servlet Filter initialization that sets an instance variable?
Wed, 29 Apr 2020 00:49:12 +0000
"Ludwig, Mark via Concurrency-interest" <[email protected]> • #17246
Re: Guarantees around Servlet Filter initialization that sets an instance variable?
Tue, 28 Apr 2020 17:02:30 +0100
Kasper Nielsen via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17245
Re: Guarantees around Servlet Filter initialization that sets an instance variable?
Tue, 28 Apr 2020 15:32:27 +0000
"Ludwig, Mark via Concurrency-interest" <[email protected]> • #17244
Re: Guarantees around Servlet Filter initialization that sets an instance variable?
Tue, 28 Apr 2020 15:20:53 +0100
Kasper Nielsen via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17243
Re: Guarantees around Servlet Filter initialization that sets an instance variable?
Tue, 28 Apr 2020 11:58:20 +0000
"Ludwig, Mark via Concurrency-interest" <[email protected]> • #17242
Re: Guarantees around Servlet Filter initialization that sets an instance variable?
Wed, 15 Apr 2020 17:12:50 -0400
Tim Peierls via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17241
Guarantees around Servlet Filter initialization that sets an instance variable?
Wed, 15 Apr 2020 20:45:55 +0000
"Ludwig, Mark via Concurrency-interest" <[email protected]> • #17240
Re: custom Nano time provider
Mon, 6 Apr 2020 14:30:25 +0100
Alex Otenko via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17239
Re: custom Nano time provider
Mon, 6 Apr 2020 14:51:15 +0200
Thorsten via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17238
Re: custom Nano time provider
Mon, 6 Apr 2020 14:26:39 +0200
Francesco Nigro via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17237
Re: custom Nano time provider
Mon, 6 Apr 2020 13:18:56 +0100
Alex Otenko via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17236
Re: custom Nano time provider
Mon, 6 Apr 2020 12:53:04 +0200
Thorsten via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17235
Re: custom Nano time provider
Mon, 6 Apr 2020 11:55:50 +0200
Peter Levart via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17234
Re: custom Nano time provider
Sun, 5 Apr 2020 15:15:47 -0600
Valentin Kovalenko via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17233
Re: custom Nano time provider
Sun, 5 Apr 2020 13:44:54 +0200
Francesco Nigro via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17232
Re: custom Nano time provider
Sun, 5 Apr 2020 13:33:57 +0200
Jonas Konrad via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17231
custom Nano time provider
Sun, 5 Apr 2020 13:23:20 +0200
Francesco Nigro via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17230
Re: Abstract Stacked Synchronizer?
Mon, 30 Mar 2020 00:43:00 -0700
Benjamin Manes via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17229
Re: Abstract Stacked Synchronizer?
Mon, 30 Mar 2020 07:34:23 +0000
Viktor Klang via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17228
Abstract Stacked Synchronizer?
Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:38:25 -0400 (EDT)
Carl M via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17227
Re: Potential data race in java.util.concurrent.ConcurrentHashMap at the fields TreeNode.left and right
Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:08:14 +0100 (CET)
Thomas Krieger via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17226
Re: Potential data race in java.util.concurrent.ConcurrentHashMap at the fields TreeNode.left and right
Thu, 26 Mar 2020 08:35:34 +0000
Kasper Nielsen via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17225
Potential data race in java.util.concurrent.ConcurrentHashMap at the fields TreeNode.left and right
Thu, 26 Mar 2020 08:55:15 +0100 (CET)
Thomas Krieger via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17224
Re: Amazon Graviton and implications for concurrent Java apps
Wed, 18 Mar 2020 13:18:48 +0100
Florian Weimer via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17223
Re: Amazon Graviton and implications for concurrent Java apps
Wed, 18 Mar 2020 10:44:30 +0000
Alex Otenko via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17222
Re: Amazon Graviton and implications for concurrent Java apps
Mon, 16 Mar 2020 10:01:36 -0600
Nathan Reynolds via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17221
Re: Amazon Graviton and implications for concurrent Java apps
Mon, 16 Mar 2020 15:43:45 +0000
Andrew Haley via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17220
Amazon Graviton and implications for concurrent Java apps
Mon, 16 Mar 2020 13:11:27 +0100
Ben Evans via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17219
Separate implementations of CarrierSender and CarrierReceiver, and firing mechanism
Wed, 11 Mar 2020 08:26:20 -0700 (MST)
Alexei Kaigorodov via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17218
Re: draft Carrier API
Wed, 11 Mar 2020 14:51:13 +0300
Vsevolod Tolstopyatov via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17217
Re: draft Carrier API
Wed, 11 Mar 2020 11:17:23 +0000
Alex Otenko via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17216
Re: draft Carrier API
Wed, 11 Mar 2020 10:46:12 +0000 (UTC)
Chris Hegarty via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17215
Re: draft Carrier API
Wed, 11 Mar 2020 01:21:17 -0700 (MST)
Alexei Kaigorodov via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17214
Re: draft Carrier API
Wed, 11 Mar 2020 06:55:55 +0000
Alex Otenko via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17213
Re: draft Carrier API
Tue, 10 Mar 2020 23:08:39 -0400
Ghadi Shayban via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17212
Re: draft Carrier API
Tue, 10 Mar 2020 11:48:24 +0000
Alex Otenko via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17211
Re: draft Carrier API
Tue, 10 Mar 2020 07:29:27 -0400
Doug Lea via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17210
Re: draft Carrier API
Tue, 10 Mar 2020 10:45:25 +0000
Chris Hegarty via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17209
Re: draft Carrier API
Tue, 10 Mar 2020 06:41:07 -0400
Doug Lea via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17208
Re: draft Carrier API
Mon, 9 Mar 2020 19:29:40 +0000
Alex Otenko via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17207
Re: draft Carrier API
Mon, 9 Mar 2020 14:49:00 +0000
Chris Hegarty via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17206
Re: draft Carrier API
Mon, 9 Mar 2020 08:50:31 -0400
Doug Lea via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17205
Re: draft Carrier API
Mon, 9 Mar 2020 08:45:51 -0400
Doug Lea via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17204
Re: draft Carrier API
Sun, 8 Mar 2020 22:59:20 +0000
Kasper Nielsen via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17203
Re: draft Carrier API
Sun, 8 Mar 2020 22:31:48 +0000
Alex Otenko via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17202
Re: draft Carrier API
Sun, 8 Mar 2020 16:36:50 +0000
Alex Otenko via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17201
Re: draft Carrier API
Sun, 8 Mar 2020 09:37:34 -0400
Doug Lea via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17200
Re: draft Carrier API
Sun, 8 Mar 2020 12:49:27 +0000
Alex Otenko via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17199
Re: draft Carrier API
Sun, 8 Mar 2020 08:05:47 -0400
Doug Lea via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17198
Re: draft Carrier API
Sun, 8 Mar 2020 07:54:24 -0400
Doug Lea via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17197
Re: draft Carrier API
Sat, 7 Mar 2020 23:25:57 +0000
Alex Otenko via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17196
Re: draft Carrier API
Sat, 7 Mar 2020 23:17:14 +0000
Alex Otenko via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17195
Re: draft Carrier API
Sat, 7 Mar 2020 11:29:22 -0500
Doug Lea via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17194
Re: draft Carrier API
Fri, 6 Mar 2020 23:06:06 +0000
Alex Otenko via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17193
Re: draft Carrier API
Fri, 6 Mar 2020 19:04:31 +0100
Dávid Karnok via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17192
draft Carrier API
Fri, 6 Mar 2020 10:21:54 -0500
Doug Lea via Concurrency-interest <[email protected]> • #17191
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.