I enclose 3 Referee reports on your paper.
We would be pleased to accept it and could you please send me
a new version before November 5 99
Please send a memo describing any suggestions of the
referees that you did not address
Ignore any aggressive remarks you don't think appropriate but 
please tell me. I trust you!

Thank you for your help in writing and refereeing papers!

Referee 1 ***********************************************************
Subject: C442 JGSI Review

The Java Memory Model is Fatally Flawed
William Pugh

a)Overall Recommendation

Probably a significant paper, but I hope the author can expand on some of
the points mentioned below.  A summary of the organization and conclusions
of the paper would be helpful (either in the introduction or conclusion).

b)Words suitable for authors

I suspect this paper raises important issues.  Perhaps some of the
points could be made in ways that would be clearer to a general audience.

The abstract gives a very brief summary of the highlights of the paper.

Section 1 reviews some basic properties of the Java  Memory Model as
it stands.  Section 2 explains some apparently unintended features
of the model, which make important compiler optimizations difficult.
The example of section 2.1 seems simple and could probably be made clearer
by adding a few more sentences (for example explaining the importance
of the aliasing).  Javasoft bug report #4242244 by Pugh contains a
simple concrete program based on the example.  It apparently detects
violation of the Java specification in several major optimizing JVMs.
Some words in the paper about this program would make the discussion
more concrete to me.

The example in Section 2.2 is more complicated.  Again I think it needs
more words.  I suppose the constraint that is specially worrisome is that
the read of `r.y' must precede the write of `p.x', even though there
is no data dependence between the relevant assignments.  But I can't
see where the text actually states this.  I wish the difficulties were
stated more explicitly, and specifics of the situation could be
compared with weaker models, such as coherence (mentioned earlier in
the section).  The author goes on to deduce that byte code reorderings
are illegal.  Again I would have liked more explanation.

Section 3 discusses weak memory models.  I wasn't sure whether the
problems with weak memory models also present with the JMM, or whether
the points in 3.1.1 actually arguments against weaker models?

Section 4 discusses unsafe idioms with the standard Java Memory Model.
I would have liked more explanation about the security issues connected
with Strings being atomic and immutable (which apparently they aren't,
really, with the current JMM).

In section 5 I would have liked to have known who are the "group of
people" discussing the safety guarantees.

Referee 2 ****************************************************************

C442: The Java Memory Model is Fatally Flawed

The paper reveals a number of problems with the Java memory model.
I appreciate very much author's insights into the issue. My only concern
is with its presentation.  Since it is being considered for journal
publication, I would suggest the author present the idea in a self-contained
way and refer to publications, instead of to informal conversations, as
motivations. In paragraph 1 of Page 1, the author mentioned "Guy Steele
was unaware that ... but after several days of discussions at OOPSLA98
agrees
that it does". Since there's are no written record about this, it may not
be a fair treatment. At least to some readers like me, this may not be good
way to motivate the work.

In paragraph 1 of Page 3, the author said: "In talking with a number of
people at OOPSLA98, I found that most people were not aware of the
implications for compilers of Coherence in the JMM". I cann't understand
the point either.  Originality, I believe, is what all research should have.

Referee 3 *********************************************************************
Subject: C442 JGSI Review


Title: The Java Memory Model is Fatally Flawed
Author: William Pugh

a) Recommendation: accept it
b) Comments to Author

  This paper describes and discusses problems in the
specification of the Java Memory Model and has been
reviewed by the own designers of the language as pointed
out in the paper by the author. I have no further coments.

c) Comments to Committee

I recommend acceptance. The paper has its value as it points
out prolems in the specification of the Java language.