Comments on: ++ not considered atomic http://madbean.com/2003/mb2003-44/ The other kind of micro blog Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:19:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Web Developer http://madbean.com/2003/mb2003-44/comment-page-1/#comment-363575 Web Developer Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:49:56 +0000 http://madbean.com/blog/2003-44#comment-363575 <p>I finally managed to observe the lack of atomicity of the ++ operator in the wild today. It's one of those things you know is not atomic, but is very nearly atomic and you don't expect your world to come crashing down if you use it. But guess what, your world will come crashing down!</p> <p>Thanks for this thorough discussion of why it's not atomic.</p> <p>Neal, there is also AtomicInteger which would fit better with the examples (as they are all ints).</p> I finally managed to observe the lack of atomicity of the ++ operator in the wild today. It’s one of those things you know is not atomic, but is very nearly atomic and you don’t expect your world to come crashing down if you use it. But guess what, your world will come crashing down!

Thanks for this thorough discussion of why it’s not atomic.

Neal, there is also AtomicInteger which would fit better with the examples (as they are all ints).

]]> By: Neal Gafter http://madbean.com/2003/mb2003-44/comment-page-1/#comment-125 Neal Gafter Wed, 05 Nov 2003 19:15:22 +0000 http://madbean.com/blog/2003-44#comment-125 <p>http://www.sonic.net/~gafter/j2se1.5/api/java/util/concurrent/atomic/AtomicLong.html</p> http://www.sonic.net/~gafter/j2se1.5/api/java/util/concurrent/atomic/AtomicLong.html

]]> By: Anonymous Coward http://madbean.com/2003/mb2003-44/comment-page-1/#comment-124 Anonymous Coward Mon, 04 Aug 2003 14:11:23 +0000 http://madbean.com/blog/2003-44#comment-124 <p>http://www.visi.com/~khuber/mtrace.log.html</p> http://www.visi.com/~khuber/mtrace.log.html

]]>