This finally got committed, after a lot of performance and testing rework, and discovering plenty of opportunity for future performance, scalability and testing improvements. Thanks to reviewers for performance push back, leading especially to a better ArrayDeque.
- Re: RFR: jsr166 jdk9 integration wave 12 Martin Buchholz
- Re: RFR: jsr166 jdk9 integration wave 12 Paul Sandoz
- Re: RFR: jsr166 jdk9 integration wave 12 Martin Buchholz
- Re: RFR: jsr166 jdk9 integration wave 12 Paul Sandoz
- Re: RFR: jsr166 jdk9 integration wave 12 Martin Buchholz
- Re: RFR: jsr166 jdk9 integration wave 12 Martin Buchholz
- Re: RFR: jsr166 jdk9 integration wave 12 Martin Buchholz
- Re: RFR: jsr166 jdk9 integration wave 12 Martin Buchholz
- Re: RFR: jsr166 jdk9 integration wave 12 Paul Sandoz
- Re: RFR: jsr166 jdk9 integration wave 12 Martin Buchholz
- Re: RFR: jsr166 jdk9 integration wave 12 Martin Buchholz
- Re: RFR: jsr166 jdk9 integration wave 12 Martin Buchholz
- Re: RFR: jsr166 jdk9 integration wave 12 Remi Forax
- Re: RFR: jsr166 jdk9 integration wave 12 Martin Buchholz
- Re: RFR: jsr166 jdk9 integration wave 12 Paul Sandoz
- Re: RFR: jsr166 jdk9 integration wave 12 Martin Buchholz
- Re: RFR: jsr166 jdk9 integration wave 12 Martin Buchholz
- Re: RFR: jsr166 jdk9 integration wave 12 Doug Lea
- Re: RFR: jsr166 jdk9 integration wave 12 Paul Sandoz
- Re: RFR: jsr166 jdk9 integration wave 12 Stuart Marks
- Re: RFR: jsr166 jdk9 integration wave 12 Martin Buchholz