Thanks Sean, On 06/06/2013 05:39 PM, Seán Coffey wrote: > The code comments indicate that some behavioural change may be present > with this fix : >> + * Revision notes: This differs from previous versions of this >> + * class that relied on AbstractQueuedSynchronizer, mainly to >> + * avoid surprising users about retaining interrupt status during >> + * cancellation races.
I think this is the corner case within the bounds of legal behavior for the implementation, as mentioned by Doug here: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2012-January/009032.html Also, there is no CCC for JDK 8 mentioning this change. > Was any further testing carried out other than FutureTask jtreg tests ? I did the targeted test for FutureTask (similar to what the original bugreport was mentioned). Otherwise, I was relying on this code being tested within the JDK 8. -Aleksey.
