On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 20:23:27 GMT, cdw200806 <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Please describe the semantic impact of the violated assertion. Would it ever >> be observable? > >> Please describe the semantic impact of the violated assertion. Would it ever >> be observable? > > If concurrent map use red-black-tree correctly(or use it normally as common > red-balck-tree algorithm), this bug will never be observable. > In the logic, It just like the old code assert 1 is a Object, but I fix it to > 1 is a Integer. More correctly( if 1 is a String it will throw error) , but > the old code is not a "bug" , will never throw error(if the tree is build and > use correct). I find it by code review. > > This assert just like a ut lack some of branch,a ut not perfect, if the > red-black-tree operation code is wrong and some case not as expect happen > and it will not aware,but if the code run correctly, maybe it not need to > fix, it decide by your team. > > @RogerRiggs > Hello @cdw200806, the line numbers in your change don't match the code in JDK > master branch. Can you merge in the latest changes from master branch into > yours and update this PR? I'm a bit surprised that the skara bots haven't > tagged this PR with a merge-conflict label. > > While at it please also enable GitHub Actions in your repo so that the GitHub > actions test jobs get run in this PR. See the message here which explains > what needs to be done > https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/24612/checks?check_run_id=40460799667. Hi colleagues, I raise a new PR to resolve conflict issue. We can close this outdated PR. https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/29857 @jaikiran @AlanBateman @viktorklang-ora ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24612#issuecomment-3939087442
