On 17/02/2015 3:43 PM, Lev Priima wrote:
Thanks David!
Is this expected behavior of this annotation ?
Yes that is the way jtreg defines tags:
http://openjdk.java.net/jtreg/tag-spec.html
"The argument tokens of a tag extend from the first token after the tag
token to the end of the comment, the end of the file, or the next tag
token, whichever comes first."
So everything between @run and @summary are taken to be the @run
commands. And there's no @comment tag unfortunately.
David
Lev
On 02/17/2015 03:20 AM, David Holmes wrote:
On 16/02/2015 9:20 PM, David Holmes wrote:
On 16/02/2015 6:59 PM, Lev Priima wrote:
Thanks, David,
Could you please push it ?
I will if Roger doesn't get to it first. It'll be 11 hours before I can
push it.
This has been pushed but note there is a minor issue with the test.
The jtreg tag specification doesn't terminate tags on newlines, they
continue until the next tag is encountered or the end of the comment.
Consequently this:
* @run main/othervm -Xmx385m TimSortStackSize2 67108864
* not for regular execution on all platforms:
* run main/othervm -Xmx8g TimSortStackSize2 1073741824
* run main/othervm -Xmx16g TimSortStackSize2 2147483644
is processed as:
@run main/othervm -Xmx385m TimSortStackSize2 67108864 not for regular
execution on all platforms: run main/othervm -Xmx8g TimSortStackSize2
1073741824 run main/othervm -Xmx16g TimSortStackSize2 2147483644
and so TimSortStackSize2 is invoked with 18 arguments.
David
-----
David
Lev
On 02/16/2015 08:55 AM, David Holmes wrote:
On 14/02/2015 12:03 AM, Lev Priima wrote:
Please review and push:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lpriima/8073124/webrev.00/
bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8073124
I hadn't realized 8072909 had been pushed without final reviewer
comments being addressed. :(
These changes seem okay. I hope they get promoted at the same time as
the original changeset so we don't get test failures.
Thanks,
David
Lev
On 02/13/2015 05:20 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Lev,
On 13/02/2015 2:56 AM, Lev Priima wrote:
Christos,
Test may fail on shorter arrays(page 8 of paper). For instance, on
worst
case, generated by test, it starts to fail on length 67108864.
After increasing stack size of runs to merge, Arrays.sort(T[])
works
also on maximum possible array for HotSpot JVM.
I'd also like to see this documented somewhere in the code.
Presently
there is a reference to listsort.txt but then you have to go and
find
it on the web. :( At a minimum could we please add:
175 * computation below must be changed if MIN_MERGE is
decreased. See
176 * the MIN_MERGE declaration above for more
information.
+ * The maximum value of 49 allows for an array up to
length
+ * Integer.MAX_VALUE-4.
Roger, David,
I've updated the test (
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lpriima/8072909/webrev.01/test/java/util/Arrays/TimSortStackSize2.java.html
) to make it more suitable for regular execution:
27 * @run main/othervm TimSortStackSize2 67108864
This will still fail on small memory devices:
:~> java TimSortStackSize2 67108864
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap
space
as the default heap ergonomics may not be large enough. I had to
add a
minimum heap of -Xmx385M to get it to run.
Thanks,
David
28 * not for regular execution on all platforms:
29 * run main/othervm -Xmx8g TimSortStackSize2 1073741824
30 * run main/othervm -Xmx32g TimSortStackSize2 2147483644
Could you please push this:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lpriima/8072909/webrev.01/
?
Lev
On 02/12/2015 12:54 PM, chris...@zoulas.com wrote:
On Feb 12, 9:57pm,david.hol...@oracle.com (David Holmes) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: 8072909: TimSort fails with
ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException on
| Ok - thanks Lev!
|
| David
For posterity can someone document this, and also the value for
which
Integer.MAX_VALUE-4 fails?
christos
