RFR: 7161229 - PriorityBlockingQueue keeps hard reference to last removed element

Alan Bateman Alan.Bateman at oracle.com
Tue Jun 26 16:35:27 UTC 2012

On 25/06/2012 05:26, David Holmes wrote:
> webrev:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/7161229/webrev/
> When removing the last element from the PBQ the "sift down" logic 
> would store it back in as array[0]. The simple fix is for the 
> sift-down to be a no-op if the queue size is zero.
> The fix has been contributed by Doug Lea. We are taking this 
> opportunity to synchronize PBQ with Doug's latest version at:
> http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/jsr166/src/main/java/util/concurrent/PriorityBlockingQueue.java?view=log 
> So in addition to the above functional fix there are a number of 
> miscellaneous code and comment cleanups. The only non-trivial, but 
> still very simple, change is to the drainTo method to make it more 
> robust if the add() on the destination collection throws an exception.
> I am of course a Reviewer for this.
> I have provided the update to the LastElement test (as this is 
> certainly related to the last element) but there are some reservations 
> about examining the PBS internals this way. Unfortunately there is no 
> good way to test for these kinds of retention issues. You either need 
> a whitebox test like this, or need to rely on non-guaranteed GC and 
> finalization behaviour.
I looked through the changes to siftDown* and the other clean-ups and 
they look fine to me.

As this test doesn't set a security manager then I assume it doesn't 
really need L92-94. It is a bit icky to use reflection and pull out a 
private field but I don't think it's is easily tested otherwise.


More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list