u are looking for.
Yilong
On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 13/09/2015 19:02, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
> > 2015-09-13 18:45 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
> >
> >> Yilong,
> >>
> >> You need to be subscribed to the dev list in order to post
I am not sure declaring this field as volatile is the right way to fix it
because the increment is still not atomic. If this counter doesn't have to
be precise, I think it's OK to allow data races on this field. Otherwise,
it should be declared as atomic.
Yilong
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 6:43 AM,
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 13/09/2015 21:59, Yilong Li wrote:
> > Sorry about the vague explanation. But the actual reasons are not the
> point
> > here.
>
> No, that is exactly the point. When you claim that something that
> appears to b
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Caldarale, Charles R <
chuck.caldar...@unisys.com> wrote:
> > From: Yilong Li [mailto:yilong...@runtimeverification.com]
> > Subject: Re: RV-Predict bugs
>
> > The following is a valid execution trace consists of 5
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Caldarale, Charles R <
chuck.caldar...@unisys.com> wrote:
> > From: Yilong Li [mailto:yilong...@runtimeverification.com]
> > Subject: Re: RV-Predict bugs
>
> > Well, it is the problem (at least part of it) because JLS says
> "In
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Caldarale, Charles R <
chuck.caldar...@unisys.com> wrote:
> > From: Yilong Li [mailto:yilong...@runtimeverification.com]
> > Subject: Re: RV-Predict bugs
>
> > > True, but as Mark previously pointed out, no one cares. All that
>
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 15/09/2015 17:59, Yilong Li wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>
> >> Long experience has lead us to be sceptical of bugs reported by
> >> automated tools. When looking at such
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 15/09/2015 20:42, Caldarale, Charles R wrote:
> >> From: Mark Thomas [mailto:ma...@apache.org]
> >> Subject: Re: RV-Predict bugs
> >
> >> Putting it into my own words to check my understanding:
> >
> >> - The two reads in T2 may be re-order
intra-thread semantics?
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Caldarale, Charles R <
chuck.caldar...@unisys.com> wrote:
> > From: Yilong Li [mailto:yilong...@runtimeverification.com]
> > Subject: Re: RV-Predict bugs
>
> > Nope, I know what I am doing. Let's first see what th
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 15/09/2015 21:51, Yilong Li wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> >
> >> On 15/09/2015 20:42, Caldarale, Charles R wrote:
> >>>> From: Mark Thomas [mailto:ma...@apache.o
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 15/09/2015 22:55, Yilong Li wrote:
>
> > Fine. Let's do your example:
> > T2R4 (out of order read returns null)
> > T1R1 (returns null)
> > T1W2 (writes non-null value)
> > T1R4 (reads new non-null
Your argument seems to assume that reordering is the only code
transformation that can be done by compiler or hardware. I don't agree that
you call this transformation a red herring. It might not be practical but
it's certainly valid. Does it violate the intra-thread semantics you
mentioned in JLS
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Caldarale, Charles R <
chuck.caldar...@unisys.com> wrote:
> > From: Yilong Li [mailto:yilong...@runtimeverification.com]
> > Subject: Re: RV-Predict bugs
>
> > So you are saying that the author of JMM misunderstands his own work?
>
&
Hi Mark,
I think these are false positives because the completion handler is only
called after the IO operation completes. There is an implicit
happens-before order here. I have fixed these false positives recently.
That's why I didn't report them in BZ. Could you try the latest version of
RV-Pred
Are you using the 1.7-SNAPSHOT downloaded recently? It's frequently
updated. If that's the case, then it's probably a real race and I have to
take a closer look.
Thanks,
Yilong
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 18/09/2015 15:27, Yilong Li wrote:
>
Yes, you are right. These are real. I didn't rerun the entire test suite
after fixing the obvious false positives.
Yilong
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 18/09/2015 15:51, Yilong Li wrote:
> > Are you using the 1.7-SNAPSHOT downloaded recently? I
16 matches
Mail list logo
