On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 9:53 PM, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com> wrote:
> On 21/08/2017 2:07 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote: > >> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 6:36 PM, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com >> <mailto:david.hol...@oracle.com>> wrote: >> >> On 20/08/2017 6:37 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote: >> >> Future projects: >> >> 377 * <li>The specified amount of real time has elapsed, more or >> less. >> >> Replace with >> >> * <li>At least the specified amount of real time has elapsed. >> >> (I think I failed to persuade David last time ...) >> >> >> And you will continue to do so. :) In the presence of spurious >> wakeups it is completely untestable to say "at least the specified >> time has elapsed" >> >> >> My view is that spurious wakeup is a separate item in this list. "The >> specified amount of real time has elapsed" should only be about "normal" >> timeout. >> > > And if you could perform whitebox testing that peeks inside to be able to > make the distinction that would be fine. But in terms of the API and any > conformance test, it is impossible to distinguish between an "early return" > and a "spurious return". So specifying "at least ..." is meaningless so > long as spurious wakeups are allowed. > The testability difference is that regular timeout is "normal" whereas spurious wakeup must be "rare" (although of course "rare" is hard to pin down). Before we fixed 8065372: Object.wait(ms, ns) timeout returns early <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8065372> returning early was unacceptably common
