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
