Hi Mike,
I thought I saw that too when you commited the change, but then
re-examinig the whole source in detail, I couldn't spot it again. I must
have stared at the wrong third of change...
Regards, Peter
On 02/24/2013 07:53 PM, Mike Duigou wrote:
Ouch, this would have been introduced by me.
I will check to see how this could have passed the pre-commit regression
testing. I suspect that a regression test needs to be improved.
Mike
On Feb 24 2013, at 10:48 , Alan Bateman wrote:
On 24/02/2013 15:49, Peter Levart wrote:
Hi Alan,
I checked and it seems all 3 IHM views [keySet|values|entrySet] have a
fail-fast iterator implementation (IdentityHashMap.IdentityHashMapIterator) and
all 3 are (were) using the iterator for .toArray implementations. So this patch
tries to preserve the behavior when there is a concurrent modification (which
is only possible from other thread and is illegal usage anyway since IHM is not
thread-safe) while executing the toArray methods on the views...
Do you see something I don't see?
My apologies, I see it does check the modification count in
IdentityHashMapIterator.nextIndex.
However, as this forced me to looks at the changes-set again then the copy loop
in Values.toArray has caught by eye:
for (int si = 0; si < tab.length; si += 2) {
if (tab[si++] != null) { // key present ?
// more elements than expected -> concurrent modification
from other thread
if (ti >= size) {
throw new ConcurrentModificationException();
}
a[ti++] = (T) tab[si]; // copy value
}
}
Looks like si is incrementing by 3 rather than 2 (which ironically will cause a
CME later because there will be fewer elements copied than expected).
Do you concur? If so then we can create a bug to change this to test tab[si]
and copy in tab[si+1].
-Alan
