On the 0x588 day of Apache Harmony Tim Ellison wrote: > 2009/4/3 Egor Pasko <[email protected]>: >> On the 0x588 day of Apache Harmony Oliver Deakin wrote: >>> I just ran the concurrent tests with M8 and I see the same tests >>> failing (some intermittently) along with some others, so I do not >>> believe these are regressions in M9. Based on these failures not being >>> regressions, and all other tests passing, I'd be happy to progress >>> with declaring M9. >> >> +1 > > Egor, I just tested your HARMONY-6137 patch, and it fixes all these > concurrent failures for me. > > I'll leave it up to your judgment about whether it is safe to apply in > the closing moments of M9 (but it would be nice to have these > resolved).
yey! I did not quite expect it to fix all failures :) the patch is trivial (telling GCC that the assembly touches memory, which it really does!). It may affect (GC) performance, but even if it does correctness is more important. so I am +1 to commit it. -- Egor Pasko
