On Sun, 27 Apr 2025 05:28:56 GMT, John R Rose <jr...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Chen Liang has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a >> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes >> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 12 additional >> commits since the last revision: >> >> - Cannot test for recursion eagerly - add test case >> - More spec, eager exception, finish with existing, thanks John >> - Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk into >> fix/classvalue-compute-remove >> - docs >> - Remove the throwing behavior due to shallow reentrancy >> - Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk into >> fix/classvalue-compute-remove >> - Add more tests to avoid critical errors like the last one >> - Major typo >> - Use identity of thread, some optimizations for single thread case >> - Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk into >> fix/classvalue-compute-remove >> - ... and 2 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/d401c31f...edd19537 > > One thing I didn't note in the javadoc, but which might be significant, is > that `computeValue` calls can be restarted for unpredictable reasons. I gave > some of them in the javadoc, but not all. I did not document the possibility > of crosstalk between <CV,C> pairs. Another pair <CV,C2> might do a remove > and update the internal CV version. The purpose of htis is to flush the CV > cache. But it also creates an interference with ongoing computation of > `computeValue` for the original <CV,C> pair. Maybe we should treat such > crosstalk as a bug. @rose00 I ran the no-promise-removal version in tiers 1-3 and added a new test case (verified to fail on mainline with 2 computeValue invocations) for this fix. Can you review the current state of this patch and also the CSR for specification wording updates? https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8352433 ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24043#issuecomment-2833757711
