If I have code like this -
long x; x = 0xFFFFFFFFL;
If i run this code on a 32 bit machine is it guaranteed to be atomic or is it possible that a different thread reading x, might get an incomplete/garbage value?
int: By default, the int data type is a 32-bit signed two's complement integer, which has a minimum value of -231 and a maximum value of 231-1.
Yes, the sizes are the same on both 32-bit and 64-bit JVM.
It's not atomic because it's a multiple-step operation at the machine code level. That is, longs and doubles are longer than the processor's word length.
Here is the short summary:
int, char, byte, short, boolean, float, reads/writes are ALWAYS atomicdouble and long, if they're volatile, reads/writes are ALWAYS atomicTherefore there is only exception where reads/writes may not be atomic:
double and long, if they're NOT declared volatile, they're NOT GUARANTEED to be atomicSo as far as atomicity of reading/writing shared data is concerned, you only need to make volatile any double or long. Everything else is already guaranteed to be atomic, regardless of how many bits are used in actual implementation.
Here's the relevant section reproduced here for quick reference:
JLS 17.7 Non-atomic Treatment of
doubleandlongSome implementations may find it convenient to divide a single write action on a 64-bit
longordoublevalue into two write actions on adjacent 32 bit values. For efficiency's sake, this behavior is implementation specific; Java virtual machines are free to perform writes tolonganddoublevalues atomically or in two parts.For the purposes of the Java programming language memory model, a single write to a non-
volatile longordoublevalue is treated as two separate writes: one to each 32-bit half. This can result in a situation where a thread sees the first 32 bits of a 64 bit value from one write, and the second 32 bits from another write. Writes and reads ofvolatile longanddoublevalues are always atomic. Writes to and reads of references are always atomic, regardless of whether they are implemented as 32 or 64 bit values.VM implementors are encouraged to avoid splitting their 64-bit values where possible. Programmers are encouraged to declare shared 64-bit values as
volatileor synchronize their programs correctly to avoid possible complications.
byte can be updated without neighbor interferencevolatile Fieldsint i;, i++ is NOT atomic!volatile long[] is volatile reference to an array of long long elements themselves are not volatile No they are not. A 64 bit store is treated as two separate 32 bit stores. So in a concurrent environment that variable can have the high 32 of one write and the low 32 of another write, obviously not thread safe.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With