Primitive Queue<any T> considerations

Vitaly Davidovich vitalyd at
Thu Nov 19 00:35:42 UTC 2015

Excellent, happy to hear that.

sent from my phone
On Nov 18, 2015 7:27 PM, "John Rose" <john.r.rose at> wrote:

> On Nov 18, 2015, at 4:01 PM, Vitaly Davidovich <vitalyd at> wrote:
> > Right, by performance penalty I meant that I'd like to ask only for
> atomicity and not also ordering.  If the T is <= machine word, I'd like it
> to act just like if I hadn't requested atomicity.  In other words, I don't
> want fences here for ordering.
> OK, check that.  So an atomic T is not the same as a Java-volatile T.
> This is a reason *not* to reuse the "volatile" keyword for def-site
> atomicity,
> and to consider a new keyword for use-site atomicity.
> We won't provide keywords for all use cases, since wrappers are
> expressive enough to fill the gaps (as in C++).  The most important
> new expressive point (IMO) is opt-in, def-site, anti-tearing; that merits
> something like a keyword, since it has security implications.

More information about the valhalla-dev mailing list