harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: [drlvm][kernel] Should we be compatible with RI ThreadGroup bug?
Date Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:13:13 GMT
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. <geir@pobox.com> 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 <elena.semukhina@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 10/14/06, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> 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 (t.p.ellison@gmail.com )
>> >> > IBM Java technology centre, UK.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> >> > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Elena
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message