On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 01:56:46 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
> FWIW exitCode out numbers exitValue in source code 3:1 (and > 5:1 in test
> code).
That might be the case, but both the called function returning the value and
the function we are changing uses the name exitValue. It seems irrelevant that
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 10:56:44 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Jaikiran Pai has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> remove micro optimization
>
> Thank you Stefan and Leonid for the reviews.
Sorry I missed this party :) Thanks for
On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 12:44:17 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review for this change to the test library's
>> `OutputAnalyzer` class, which proposes to remove some unnecessary logging
>> from the `getExitValue()` call?
>>
>> As noted in
On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 20:01:42 GMT, Leonid Mesnik wrote:
> Technically, the volatile is not enough to avoid racy writing into exitValue.
> However, it doesn't affect logic.
Agreed.
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16919#issuecomment-1836981670
On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 12:44:17 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review for this change to the test library's
>> `OutputAnalyzer` class, which proposes to remove some unnecessary logging
>> from the `getExitValue()` call?
>>
>> As noted in
On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 12:44:17 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review for this change to the test library's
>> `OutputAnalyzer` class, which proposes to remove some unnecessary logging
>> from the `getExitValue()` call?
>>
>> As noted in
On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 12:09:14 GMT, Stefan Karlsson wrote:
>> Hello Stefan, this is just for a tiny optimization to prevent multiple reads
>> (in the same thread) on the `volatile` field `processExitCode` in this
>> method.
>
> I don't think such an optimization is needed here. This is not
>
> Can I please get a review for this change to the test library's
> `OutputAnalyzer` class, which proposes to remove some unnecessary logging
> from the `getExitValue()` call?
>
> As noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8321163, right now this
> method logs:
>
>
>
