Thank you Mike!
On 24.02.2014 22:26, Mike Duigou wrote:
On Feb 24 2014, at 06:37 , roger riggs <roger.ri...@oracle.com> wrote:
Hi Ivan,
The code is correct as written but there might be some creep in the end time
due to the sampling of System.nanoTime.
I would be inclined to calculate the final time of the timeout once
and then compare simply with the current nanotime.
long end = (timeout == 0) ? Long.MAX_VALUE : (System.nanoTime() + timeout *
1000000);
I hate seeing numerical constants
TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS.toNanos(timeout)
Yes, this is much clearer.
Though I used the opposite conversion: NANOSECONDS.toMillis(end - start);
Would you please take a look at the updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/6853696/1/webrev/
Sincerely yours,
Ivan
Then the test in the loop can be:
if (System.nanoTime() > end) {
return null;
}
This compare should be re-written in the overflow compensating style Martin
mentions.
Mike
Roger (Not a Reviewer)
On 2/24/2014 12:59 AM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Hello!
ReferenceQueue.remove(timeout) may return too early, i.e. before the specified
timeout has elapsed.
Would you please review the fix?
The change also includes a regression test, which can be used to demonstrate
the issue.
BUGURL: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6853696
WEBREV: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/6853696/0/webrev/
Sincerely yours,
Ivan
