On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 12:57:48 GMT, Oli Gillespie <[email protected]> wrote:
>> @olivergillespie Since this PR doesn't address/resolve the issue it is >> linked to, perhaps this change should wait for the fix to the issue? > > @viktorklang-ora - thanks for lookin. This PR does address > https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8386372, the issue in the title ('add > test case'). It doesn't address https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8386278 > (GC nepotism - mentioned in the description), but that is not a concurrency > bug, so it doesn't need to be fixed before the test case is added. The test > passes right now. > > The link is that the test case would be useful to ensure a fix for > JDK-8386278 (performance issue) does not regress correctness (I created a > prototype fix for the nepotism issue, and it was functionally wrong, but no > tests caught it until I enabled this test). > > Hope that makes sense. @olivergillespie Ah, ok, if this PR is a prereq for addressing the other (nepotism) issue, would it not make more sense to address the test-change AND the "fix" in the same PR, so that if something needs to get backported, we don't risk having the test-change being left out from a backport? ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/31462#issuecomment-4742598361
