Revision as of 09:46, 31 May 2021 edit Rob* (talk \| contribs) 185 edits https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Test_and_test-and-set&oldid=869387971 seems to have misunderstood that the pseudocode in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test-and-set#Software_implementation_of_test-and-set is only pseudocode and is _missing_ "actual atomic locking". The yield() doesn't help. As such, i think previous versions of the text of this section are clearer. Really, this article should maybe just be a section in the test-and-set article. ← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:10, 18 July 2021 edit undo InedibleHulk (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 127,642 edits m →Caveat: Hyphen, comma, negative. Next edit →
Line 29: ==Caveat== Although this [[Optimization (computer science)\|optimization]] is useful in [[system programming]], it should be avoided in high -level [[concurrent programming]] ~~unless all~~when constraints are ~~clear~~unclear and ~~understood~~misunderstood. One example of bad usage is a similar [[programming idiom\|idiom]] called [[double-checked locking]], which is [[Double-checked_locking#Usage_in_Java\|unsafe without special precautions]] and can be an [[anti-pattern]].<ref>David Bacon et al. [http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel/DoubleCheckedLocking.html The "Double-Checked Locking is Broken" Declaration].</ref> ==See also==

Test and test-and-set: Difference between revisions