Aleksey Shipilev wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Can you think of a situation when the null check will introduce some >> instability or regression? > I actually persuaded by Chunrong's point -- that's double checking, so > no problems should occur. > > As for introducing new bugs, consider the issue described in > HARMONY-6013 is really covering some other deadly issue. Consider the > workload where NPE is not firing because of H6013,
...but the test doesn't silently work without the NPE, it causes a trap. So we know that our tests don't currently cover the situation where we would now expect to get a NPE, or they would be trapping today, right? > so after H6013 gets > fixed the control flow in that workload is going differ than in tested > M8. As many uses of the helper, as many the chances the control flow > differs. Having that, we can't say the change is minor. I appreciate that the code will appear in many places, but I think it is localized and we know the situation doesn't occur in current testing. That said, I'd rather run the two days + testing again rather than spend two days arguing about it :-) > If I will be > able eventually to say that similar changes are "limited > impact"-issues, then you should employ me as oracle tester <g> :) lol > Of course, that's the speculation if this is actually a double null checking. > I just want not to guess while talking about milestones. ack - like I said, if people think we should re-spin the build and retest, then I'm ok with that too. It would be the conservative approach. Regards, Tim
