Ok - I committed the change to DRLVM, but asked that you take the change
to the classlib unit test and create a new JIRA so it's less confusing,
because the fix to to the unit test wasn't related to the setMaxPrio bug
geir
Elena Semukhina wrote:
On 10/24/06, *Geir Magnusson Jr.* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Just to be clear - does J9 exhibit the same problem as the RI?
Yes, it does. The test passes on J9.
Elena Semukhina wrote:
> I attached two new patches to HARMONY-1625 which fix the test and
copy RI
> bug to drlvm ThreadGroup implementation :(
> Please review and commit!
>
>
> On 10/17/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>>
>> Agreed. Lets match J9 and RI for now. We can always revisit as
it will
>> be logged, right? :)
>>
>> Elena Semukhina wrote:
>> > As everyone keeps silence, I'd suggest to change
implementation to be
>> bug
>> > compatible with RI.
>> >
>> > On 10/15/06, Elena Semukhina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 10/14/06, Tim Ellison < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Elena Semukhina wrote:
>> >> > > Classlib test ThreadGroupTest.test_setMaxPriorityI ()
fails on
>> DRLVM
>> >> > because
>> >> > > it expects behaviour that conflicts with specification.
>> >> > > The test passes on IBM VME and RI. The issue is reported at
>> >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-1625 .
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Actually there is a bug report in
>> >> > >
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4708197 which
>> >> > agreed
>> >> > > that
>> >> > > this is a bug in RI and it should be fixed.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Should we follow RI's behaviour and change drlvm
>> ThreadGroup.javaor
>> >> > should
>> >> > > we fix the test?
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm off-line at the moment so cannot look at the bug
details. The
>> >> > question is whether fixing the 'bug' will likely break any
>> >> applications?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> This question was discussed in Sun's bug report as well. A
JCK test
>> >> detected this bug. The first evaluation stated that "This is
>> relatively
>> >> obscure functionality and it's theoretically possible at that
changing
>> >> the
>> >> behavior will break running apps." The second evaluation
suggested to
>> >> fix the implementation rather than change the spec. The bug is in
>> >> progress
>> >> since 2002...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Regards,
>> >> > Tim
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> >
>> >> > Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> )
>> >> > IBM Java technology centre, UK.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Elena
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Thanks,
Elena
