Thanks Kim - pushing now.
In a way this does "fix" the original problem as we should no longer get
to that particular assert :)
Robbin: you don't have an OpenJDK user name yet! So I couldn't give you
reviewing credit. :(
David
-----
On 15/03/2016 4:48 PM, Kim Barrett wrote:
On Mar 15, 2016, at 2:43 AM, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com> wrote:
Hi Kim,
On 15/03/2016 4:34 PM, Kim Barrett wrote:
On Mar 14, 2016, at 2:46 AM, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com> wrote:
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8137165
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/8137165/webrev/
This isn't a fix per-se but some additional diagnostic code to try and detect
the conditions where the bug might manifest. The basic failure mode was:
Changes look good.
Good cleanup with the sigemptyset calls. Pedantic is a good thing when dealing
with POSIX.
Thanks for the Review.
Since this isn’t an actual fix, should the change be associated with a
different bug number?
Or are you treating this as the moral equivalent of resolving as not
reproducible?
I toyed with creating a subtask for this change and leaving the original open, but
realistically I think it may turn out to be "not reproducible". I can be swayed
if you think a new subtask would be better?
Just making sure I understood your intent. It doesn’t look like there’s so
much information in this one that creating a new one with a reference would be
a big problem if it ever shows up again. Go ahead as is.
