Thomas,
Are we still waiting for a second core-libs reviewer on this?
David
On 17/05/2013 5:56 PM, Thomas Schatzl wrote:
On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 10:47 +1000, David Holmes wrote:
On 16/05/2013 8:44 PM, Thomas Schatzl wrote:
On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 13:55 +0200, Thomas Schatzl wrote:
I updated the test program and the patch in java.lang.ref.Reference
accordingly.
As for the problem of reproducibility, in my tests I had a 100%
reproduction rate with the previous version of the test.
However, now I also set -XX:-UseTLAB and -Xmx16M in the test program as
suggested in some other emails.
I will report back with a new webrev after some testing on more
platforms as suggested by David.
a new webrev for the patch is at
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tschatzl/7038914/webrev.2/
I think the comment is somewhat confusing, but then the details here are
quite confusing. I guess the key part of this is that if OOME is thrown
we don't want to try and load InterruptedException - though I'm unclear,
based on normal exception processing semantics, when that might occur.
I tried to clarify the comment a little; I also added a dummy
instantiation of InterruptedException at the start of the test program
to avoid OOME during class loading in this case as suggested by the
other email.
The new webrev is at
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tschatzl/7038914/webrev.3/
I only compiled and tested this webrev that nothing broke locally, as
the changes are minimal and mostly concerning comments. Pushing a jdk
through jprt also takes a long time.
Before sending you a patchset after it has been reviewed, I will push it
through jprt again.
You can count me as a Reviewer and sponsor. I think only a second JDK/TL
Reviewer is needed here as no impact on hotspot.
Thanks,
Thomas
