Gary,
On 18/11/2011 6:28 AM, Gary Adams wrote:
Here's my first concrete slow machine timed out test ...
jdk/test/java/lang/concurrent/forkjoin/Integrate.java
I had been looking at tests that had a declared "timeout=xxx",
but today I just started running the java/util/concurrent
tests at a varie
On 17/11/2011 20:28, Gary Adams wrote:
:
In general it seems that tests that declare a timeout less than 120
seconds are indicating that an early termination for the test is
acceptable.
Tests declaring a longer than 120 second timeout recognize that
additional
processing time may be required
Here's my first concrete slow machine timed out test ...
jdk/test/java/lang/concurrent/forkjoin/Integrate.java
I had been looking at tests that had a declared "timeout=xxx",
but today I just started running the java/util/concurrent
tests at a variety of clock speeds using ejdk1.7.0 and
found
On 11/15/11 8:33 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Gary,
On 16/11/2011 6:14 AM, Gary Adams wrote:
I've been scanning a number of the slow machine test
bugs that are reported and wanted to check to see if
anyone has looked into time dependencies in the regression
tests previously. From what I've been a
Hi Gary,
On 16/11/2011 6:14 AM, Gary Adams wrote:
I've been scanning a number of the slow machine test
bugs that are reported and wanted to check to see if
anyone has looked into time dependencies in the regression
tests previously. From what I've been able to learn so far
individual bugs can us
Gary - this might be something to bring up on the jtreg-use list.
Ideally the tests wouldn't have any hardcoded timeouts but sometimes
there isn't any other choice.
-Alan
On 15/11/2011 20:14, Gary Adams wrote:
I've been scanning a number of the slow machine test
bugs that are reported and
