🚀 go-pugleaf

Hi,

You are right when you talk about all the problems I can found when
replacing threads library. But now I'm in the final phase of the replacement
(I think so), and only with a special Java application I sometimes have
memory problems (some constants of the program become 0 without any reason).

"Joe Seigh" <jseigh@genuity.com> wrote in message
news:3A967BA3.C506833B@genuity.com...
> Jordi Guitart wrote:
> >
> > I'm only modifying a little part of the JVM (in fact, I'm not
"modifying"
> > anything, I'm only replacing threads library with another one, and
> > unfortunately I have lateral memory problems, so I'm trying to discover
> > why?)
> >
> > JGF
>
> That's probably not a good idea as you've found out.  Java has rather
> specific semantics.  The various thread libraries have slightly different
> semantics, even if they're POSIX pthreads.  There's a number of places you
> could have problems.  One or more of the following could apply.
>
> 1. The jvm implementor's don't understand java/jvm semantics correctly.
> 2. The jvm implementor's did not implement java/jvm semantics correctly.
> 3. The two thread libraries have different semantics and so they're not
>    really interchangeable.
> 4. The jvm implementor's are relying on implementation side effects of
>    the first library that aren't in the second library. e.g. the
>    first library has FIFO locks and the second does not.  Another way
>    of saying this is they're relying on undocumented behavior in
>    the threads library version they are using.
>
> So there's a lot of possibilities here, very subtle ones.  Are you
> sure you want to get into this?
>
> Joe Seigh
>
> Joe Seigh