On 10/25/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
HARMONY-1955 has
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 PRO
On 10/24/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[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 imple
Just to be clear - does J9 exhibit the same problem as the RI?
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]> wrote:
Agre
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]> wrote:
Agreed. Lets match J9 and RI for now. We can always revisit as it will
be logged, right? :
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]> wrote:
On 10/14/06, Tim Elliso
BTW, bug evaluation suggests that implementation may be fixed at
"beginning of the Java SE 7 cycle" - one more argument to follow spec.
So I vote for applying the H-1625 patch, all the more it fixes several
other issues in the test.
2006/10/17, Tony Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Joshua Bloch said, "th
Joshua Bloch said, "thread groups are largely obsolete.","Avoid thread groups!"
I think it is not necessary to fullly comply with RI here ;-)
On 10/17/06, Elena Semukhina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As everyone keeps silence, I'd suggest to change implementation to be bug
compatible with RI.
On
As everyone keeps silence, I'd suggest to change implementation to be bug
compatible with RI.
On 10/15/06, Elena Semukhina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/14/06, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Elena Semukhina wrote:
> > Classlib test ThreadGroupTest.test_setMaxPriorityI() fails on
On 10/14/06, Tim Ellison <[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
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
