harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [vote] Declare r711744 as M8
Date Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:39:25 GMT
Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Can you think of a situation when the null check will introduce some
>> instability or regression?
> I actually persuaded by Chunrong's point -- that's double checking, so
> no problems should occur.
> As for introducing new bugs, consider the issue described in
> HARMONY-6013 is really covering some other deadly issue. Consider the
> workload where NPE is not firing because of H6013, 

...but the test doesn't silently work without the NPE, it causes a trap.

So we know that our tests don't currently cover the situation where we
would now expect to get a NPE, or they would be trapping today, right?

> so after H6013 gets
> fixed the control flow in that workload is going differ than in tested
> M8. As many uses of the helper, as many the chances the control flow
> differs. Having that, we can't say the change is minor.

I appreciate that the code will appear in many places, but I think it is
localized and we know the situation doesn't occur in current testing.

That said, I'd rather run the two days + testing again rather than spend
two days arguing about it :-)

> If I will be
> able eventually to say that similar changes are "limited
> impact"-issues, then you should employ me as oracle tester <g> :)


> Of course, that's the speculation if this is actually a double null checking.
> I just want not to guess while talking about milestones.

ack - like I said, if people think we should re-spin the build and
retest, then I'm ok with that too.  It would be the conservative approach.


View raw message