Changeset: 46675076f753
Author:sjiang
Date: 2012-12-28 16:44 +0100
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/46675076f753
7120365: DiffHBTest.java fails due to ConcurrentModificationException
Summary: The problem is from the server notification forwarder, it should use a
copy
On 28/12/2012 03:22, Stuart Marks wrote:
:
Alan, you've fixed a bunch of tests that were missing @run tags at
least twice in the past [1], [2]. I observe that this recent changeset
[3] removed an @run tag that was necessary to run the test. It's not
quite the same pathology, but it demonstrat
On 12/27/12 2:31 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 27/12/2012 18:19, Stuart Marks wrote:
It's true that one can omit the @run tag and single-file tests like this one
will get built and run by default. My advice, however, is to use the @run tag
even when one isn't strictly required.
My comment was on t
On 27/12/2012 18:19, Stuart Marks wrote:
I hate to contradict Alan on this
It's true that one can omit the @run tag and single-file tests like
this one will get built and run by default. My advice, however, is to
use the @run tag even when one isn't strictly required.
My comment was on th
I hate to contradict Alan on this
It's true that one can omit the @run tag and single-file tests like this one
will get built and run by default. My advice, however, is to use the @run tag
even when one isn't strictly required. The reason has to do with jtreg's rules
of when it decides to
On 27/12/2012 11:33, shanliang wrote:
Thanks for all comments, here is the new webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sjiang/JDK-7120365/webrev.03/
Indeed, no need to have @run for the test.
Shanliang
Thanks, it looks okay to me now.
-Alan
Thanks for all comments, here is the new webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sjiang/JDK-7120365/webrev.03/
Indeed, no need to have @run for the test.
Shanliang
Alan Bateman wrote:
On 26/12/2012 15:07, shanliang wrote:
Yes should use a cop[y, it is a mistake to use a unmodifiable view.
Her
On 26/12/2012 15:07, shanliang wrote:
Yes should use a cop[y, it is a mistake to use a unmodifiable view.
Here is the new webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sjiang/JDK-7120365/webrev.02/
I have added a new test to reproduce the bug in an almost sure way.
Thanks,
Shanliang
Thanks for the u
Yes should use a cop[y, it is a mistake to use a unmodifiable view.
Here is the new webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sjiang/JDK-7120365/webrev.02/
I have added a new test to reproduce the bug in an almost sure way.
Thanks,
Shanliang
Alan Bateman wrote:
On 24/12/2012 14:08, shanliang wr
On 24/12/2012 14:08, shanliang wrote:
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sjiang/JDK-7120365/webrev.00/
The test is correct, it was implemented to verify the fix for bug
4911721, but in addition it detects luckily another problem within the
method ServerNotifForwarder.snoopOnUnregister
The p
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sjiang/JDK-7120365/webrev.00/
The test is correct, it was implemented to verify the fix for bug
4911721, but in addition it detects luckily another problem within the
method ServerNotifForwarder.snoopOnUnregister
The problem was that during a "for" cycle, t
11 matches
Mail list logo
