Re: Optimizations on synchronized methods in java/C++

On 2010-07-20, Srikanth Raju <srikiraju@gmail.com> wrote:
> class Foo
> {
> private int a = 0;
> private int b = 0;
> public synchronized doSomethingWithA( int var )
> {
> int tmp = some_function( var ); // heavy computation
> a += tmp;
> }
> public synchronized doSomethingWithB( int var )
> {
> int tmp = some_function( var ); // heavy computation
> b += tmp;
> }
> };
>
> Can the compiler see that the first statement in the methods are local
> and therefore not lock the object for that statement, and hold the
> lock only for the actual addition part, so that it saves time?


I'm no Java expert, but looking at this piece of code, not the state is
flagged as synchronized, but the method, so I don't see how the compiler
could see it is all about "a" and "b" in the first place.

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.