[kaffe] Bug Report
stack at cs.utah.edu
Thu Apr 25 11:46:45 PDT 2002
> > will break because the top of the stack doesn't change between the first
> > and second lock. Therefore, the first unlock will completely free the
> > lock since the vm can't tell the difference between the two. So, other
> > than pushing something on the stack on every synchronized, i don't think
> > theres much you can do without rewriting the whole locking system.
> Wow, that sounds too bad to be true. Can we solve this with
> a recursion counter or something?
Yeah, but that ends up being so much like the latte/ibm locking approach
it seems silly to not just go all the way. Also, it wouldn't fix any
problems the stack approach has with optimizations (delayed pop and
More information about the kaffe