On 18.04.2014 18:38, Mandy Chung wrote:
Thumbs up
Mandy
Thanks!
On 4/18/2014 4:21 AM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Hi Mandy!
May I consider this fix approved?
Sincerely yours,
Ivan
On 15.04.2014 10:10, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
On 15.04.2014 6:23, Mandy Chung wrote:
On 4/14/2014 11:26 AM, Ivan G
Thumbs up
Mandy
On 4/18/2014 4:21 AM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Hi Mandy!
May I consider this fix approved?
Sincerely yours,
Ivan
On 15.04.2014 10:10, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
On 15.04.2014 6:23, Mandy Chung wrote:
On 4/14/2014 11:26 AM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Actually, zero tolerance should be su
Hi Mandy!
May I consider this fix approved?
Sincerely yours,
Ivan
On 15.04.2014 10:10, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
On 15.04.2014 6:23, Mandy Chung wrote:
On 4/14/2014 11:26 AM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Actually, zero tolerance should be sufficient now even for Windows
platform.
Measuring the time wi
On 15/04/2014 4:54 PM, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Hi guys,
Should 'actual' and 'reference' be declared as volatile?
I see that they are accessed from main() after joining the threads.
Or does joining the threads guarantees that 'main' will see the right
values?
Yes. If you join() a Thread you are g
Hi guys,
Should 'actual' and 'reference' be declared as volatile?
I see that they are accessed from main() after joining the threads.
Or does joining the threads guarantees that 'main' will see the right
values?
best regards,
-- daniel
On 4/15/14 8:48 AM, David Holmes wrote:
On 15/04/2014
On 15/04/2014 4:10 PM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
On 15.04.2014 6:23, Mandy Chung wrote:
On 4/14/2014 11:26 AM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Actually, zero tolerance should be sufficient now even for Windows
platform.
Measuring the time with nanoTime() should make the inner and outer
time intervals consis
On 15.04.2014 6:23, Mandy Chung wrote:
On 4/14/2014 11:26 AM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Actually, zero tolerance should be sufficient now even for Windows
platform.
Measuring the time with nanoTime() should make the inner and outer
time intervals consistent.
I've added the tolerance just to play
On 4/14/2014 11:26 AM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Actually, zero tolerance should be sufficient now even for Windows
platform.
Measuring the time with nanoTime() should make the inner and outer
time intervals consistent.
I've added the tolerance just to play safer.
I can remove it.
That'd be eve
Thank you Brent for the pointer!
I think that using nanoTime() is simpler in this situation.
We don't really have to use currentTimeMillis(), so no need to make it
more reliable.
Sincerely yours,
Ivan
On 14.04.2014 21:22, Brent Christian wrote:
Hi, Ivan
This sounds like an issue we saw in F
On 14.04.2014 20:18, Mandy Chung wrote:
On 4/14/2014 6:21 AM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Hello!
The test EarlyTimeout.java failed again, now with message "elapsed
time 981 is less than timeout 1000."
The root cause seems to be non-accurate time measurement in Windows:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/
Thanks Chris!
It's very similar, though still different.
ReferenceQueue.remove(timeout) makes sure the timeout has fully elapsed,
using System.nanoTime().
Thus the test failure only indicates that nested time intervals measured
with nanoTime() and currentTimeMillis() can be inconsistent: The i
Hi, Ivan
This sounds like an issue we saw in FX a while ago with imprecise timers
on Windows. If it is, you might check out:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6435126
It describes a workaround to enable higher-precision timing on Windows
(using a long-sleeping daemon thread). That m
On 4/14/2014 6:21 AM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Hello!
The test EarlyTimeout.java failed again, now with message "elapsed
time 981 is less than timeout 1000."
The root cause seems to be non-accurate time measurement in Windows:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms724397(v=v
Are you by any chance running on a VM? We have seen issues like this
before, see
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-7148829
( as of yet still unresolved)
-Chris.
On 14/04/14 14:21, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Hello!
The test EarlyTimeout.java failed again, now with message "elapsed time
Hello!
The test EarlyTimeout.java failed again, now with message "elapsed time
981 is less than timeout 1000."
The root cause seems to be non-accurate time measurement in Windows:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms724397(v=vs.85).aspx
Because of this we can achieve thi
15 matches
Mail list logo
