> On 29 Jan 2016, at 13:43, Hamlin Li wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> Sorry for delayed response, have been occupied by other higher priority task.
> Thanks for your review, I agree with you that your second approach is better.
> New webrev:
Hi Paul,
Sorry for delayed response, have been occupied by other higher priority
task.
Thanks for your review, I agree with you that your second approach is
better.
New webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mli/8076458/webrev.01/
Below are times cost for different ops:
total:169.996
On 2016/1/29 20:53, Paul Sandoz wrote:
On 29 Jan 2016, at 13:43, Hamlin Li wrote:
Hi Paul,
Sorry for delayed response, have been occupied by other higher priority task.
Thanks for your review, I agree with you that your second approach is better.
New webrev:
> On 29 Jan 2016, at 17:43, Hamlin Li wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2016/1/29 20:53, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>>> On 29 Jan 2016, at 13:43, Hamlin Li wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Paul,
>>>
>>> Sorry for delayed response, have been occupied by other higher priority
>>>
Hi Hamlin,
Conservatively I would prefer not to remove data sets if at all possible. It
will affect all tests, and leaf tasks for parallel streams should have enough
data to crunch on.
I suspect the problem of the flatMap test is not necessarily due to the source
sizes being of 1000 elements
Hi everyone,
Would you please help to review the fix for bug
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8076458,
java/util/stream/test/org/openjdk/tests/java/util/stream/FlatMapOpTest.java
timeout.
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mli/8076458/webrev.00/
Thank you
-Hamlin