On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 17:16:03 GMT, Nir Lisker <nlis...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> I looked at the fix for >> [JDK-8093144](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8093144), and the >> reason BitSet was >> introduced was to ensure that the elements are removed from this List in >> reverse order (prior to that fix, they were >> removed in forward order with the loop index being messed up). This patch >> preserves the correct behavior, and just >> looks to be a better fix for that earlier problem. I do recommend running >> the failing test case from >> [JDK-8093144](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8093144) to verify no >> regressions, but it looks like a good and >> safe fix to me. @yososs I marked this discussion thread as unresolved >> mainly to make this comment, but also because >> you didn't fix the spacing suggested by @nlisker -- please do that. > >> the reason BitSet was introduced was to ensure that the elements are removed >> from this List in reverse order (prior to >> that fix, they were removed in forward order with the loop index being >> messed up). > > But why do they need to be removed in reverse order to begin with? The super > implementation does forward removal, or > just use `removeIf`. It might not matter any more (presuming that it was done correctly), but it seems safer to leave the logic as-is to match the existing behavior. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/305
