Code review - 6731620 TEST_BUG: java/util/Timer/ is too optimistic about the execution time of System.out.printf

David Holmes david.holmes at
Mon Nov 21 12:44:23 UTC 2011

On 21/11/2011 10:17 PM, Gary Adams wrote:
> On 11/21/11 05:44 AM, Gary Adams wrote:
>> On 11/21/11 5:37 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>>> On 21/11/2011 01:39, David Holmes wrote:
>>>> Never mind - Alan already tracked down reviews and did push.
>>> Yes, I pushed the three that I thought had been reviewed and
>>> thoroughly battered to death. There is a fourth one
>>> (test/java/lang/ThreadGroup/ that I need to double check
>>> who the reviewers are before pushing it.
>>> On test/java/util/Timer/ then I agree this should be
>>> changed as array elements cannot be volatile. I don't think it it
>>> will be an issue in practice but we might as well get it done now
>>> while the discussion is fresh.
>>> -Alan.
>> I'll be glad to spin another change here.
>> There were conflicting suggestions on
>> this bug and I thought I took the last
>> comment.
> Here's a fresh bug number to handle the volatile revision (pun intended)
> 7114125 java/util/Timer/ should use volatile cross thread
> variable declaration
> Here's a fresh webrev for the proposed adjusted fix.

Looks good to me but can we please have a distinct email thread for the 
new bug review.



More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list