[jmm-dev] ECOOP, JVMLS
Peter.Sewell at cl.cam.ac.uk
Sun Jul 20 00:24:23 UTC 2014
On Jul 19, 2014 8:59 PM, "Doug Lea" <dl at cs.oswego.edu> wrote:
> On 07/19/2014 12:45 PM, Peter Sewell wrote:
>>> Why not just get it over with by adding to the rest of the spec a
>>> no-thin-air disclaimer?
>> the above sentence may be misleading - if we knew how to *state* such
>> a disclaimer (in a way compatible with enough optimisation and h/w
>> behaviour), we'd be done already.
> Yes, thanks. I included this only because some people know that
> this tactic was tried with C++/C11 :-) But it needs a follow-on
> sentence reminding people of definitional problems mentioned in
> previous paragraphs.
> Also, in think-out-loud-mode: The most general form of OOTA
> Query seems to be: Can a given value be returned by a given
> read when the given program is run in any execution under an
> arbitrarily unconstrained (weak) memory model? This might
> be easier to characterize than some alternatives.
Easy to characterise, but it'd include executions with totally crazy
control-flow-path choices and utterly broken internal invariants - so not
much help for reasoning...
More information about the jmm-dev