[armedbear-devel] [PATCH] Support for SYNCHRONIZED blocks (and company)

Alessio Stalla alessiostalla at gmail.com
Thu Jul 9 09:51:25 UTC 2009

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Erik Huelsmann<ehuels at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 7:40 AM, Mark Evenson<evenson at panix.com> wrote:
>> Erik Huelsmann wrote:
>>> The patch...
>>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Erik Huelsmann<ehuels at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Based on discussion earlier this week, I'd like the following patch to
>>>> get committed to our trunk.
>>>> It introduces a new block statement
>>>>  SYNCHRONIZED-ON <object>
>>>>   body
>> And, just to be clear, this patch meets Anton Vodonosov's caution that
>> "synchronized" has semantics associated with memory synchronization because
>> it implements SYNCHRONIZED-ON directly in the bytecode compiler just as Java
>> (the language) does, right?  So the whole "happens-before" semantics
>> mentioned in the JLS should be met?
> Exactly: I built the compiler conforming to the JVM spec section on
> "compiling for the JVM" which discusses the Java 'synchronized'
> statement compilation. So, yes.

Great work!

> The only question I asked myself when I woke up this morning is:
> Should the symbols in this patch not be added to the JAVA package, as
> they are designed to "provide access to the Java functionality"?

Hmm, you have a point. Perhaps they should be homed and external in
JAVA, but imported in THREADS and re-exported from there.

> I still think the Gates implementation should be in the threads package, though.
> I really liked Alessio's suggestion to use javaInstance() to lock on.
> That increases interoperability. Alessio, your CON with respect to
> fixnums is not justified, IMO, because in general, you can't expect
> numbers to remain the same object at any time, according to the spec.
> (The same is true, btw, if you synchronize on the Fixnum itself: the
> compiler may box the fixnum in order to create a synchronized-on
> object)

Ok, point taken, but my CON was meant to be more general, because
javaInstance() is not guaranteed to always return the same instance
even if the LispObject on which it is called has not changed its
internal state. Still, it probably does for most objects which I
expect to be typically used as locks (symbols, strings? not sure,
JavaObjects, ...), so it's just a matter of figuring out which objects
are "safe" and which aren't (and maybe document those ;)


More information about the armedbear-devel mailing list