From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-prs-return-21099-listarch-gcc-prs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 2259 invoked by alias); 13 Aug 2002 22:16:04 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-prs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 2245 invoked by uid 71); 13 Aug 2002 22:16:03 -0000
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 15:29:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20020813221603.2244.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: libgcj/7587: direct threaded interpreter not thread-safe
Reply-To: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00270.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-prs.sourceware.org>

The following reply was made to PR libgcj/7587; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: libgcj/7587: direct threaded interpreter not thread-safe
Date: 13 Aug 2002 16:12:12 -0600

 Tom> The direct-threaded interpreter doesn't lock
 Tom> when testing or assigning `prepared'.
 Tom> This isn't thread-safe.
 
 This problem occurs in many places in the direct-threaded code :-(
 In particular it happens whenever we rewrite the compiled bytecode.
 
 Tom