On 11/17/06, Gregory Shimansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Elena Semukhina wrote: > On 11/16/06, Gregory Shimansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Elena Semukhina wrote: >> > As Gregory mentioned ThreadTest.testJoinlongint() failure he observed >> > yesterday, I filed a http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2204 >> > issue >> > for that. I saw this failure quite long ago but cannot reproduce it >> today >> > trying different platforms/EMs. When the test failed, it reported that >> > actual wait time is less than required. >> > >> > The spec for join() reads: "Waits at most millis milliseconds plus >> > nanosnanoseconds for this thread to die. " There is an obvious >> > misprint here: >> > there should be "at least" but not "at most" and this was mentioned in >> > >> > http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4132653 >> > http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=5068368 >> > >> > On the other hand, in classlib ThreadTest I saw that they agree with >> > Thread.sleep(1000) duration >= 800 and join(100, 999999) duration <= >> 300. >> > >> > Can the current DRLVM guarantee that it does not exit join() earlier >> than >> > expected? >> > If not, we should make the test more tolerable to timing. >> >> There is also an unstable ObjectTest.testWaitlongint which fails once in >> a while (about once in 50 - 100 runs). It also seems to wait a bit less >> than required. I think there is also a bug in the test, nanos should be >> 500000, not 500. But fixing this doesn't help, test still fails on >> windows. > > > Gregory, why do you think this is a bug? nanos can be any value between 0 > and 999999. Actually there is a bug in thread_native_condvar.c which Yes it can. But I think that comparison at the end of the test that "finish - start + 1 > millis" mean that it should be 1 more millisecond of waiting. To do this it was intended to wait for 500 and a half = 500.5 milliseconds, which means that nanos should be 500000, not 500. Correct my if I am wrong about the original test intension.
I'm not an author of the test but I think we should wait one more millisecond even if we ask to wait 500.0005 ms because a millisecond is a minimal available time unit. I expect that the time is rounded up rather than towards the nearest vlaue. Am I wrong?
ignores > any nanos < 1000 when converting them to microseconds. > > The spec for Object.wait(long) reads that waiting lasts until: > ... > The specified amount of real time has elapsed, more or less. > > It does not say neither "at most" nor "at least". I think we can fix both > tests so that they could wait a little bit less than it is now expected and > print the values at error messages. I attached a patch to HARMONY-2204. > Please take a look and commit if it is OK. Then we can see if the tests > still fail. -- Gregory
-- Thanks, Elena
