Request for review : 7121314 : Behavior mismatch between AbstractCollection.toArray(T[] ) and its spec

David Holmes david.holmes at
Wed Mar 28 05:29:25 UTC 2012

Hi Ulf,

I understand your point about ensuring we test 
AbstractCollection.toArray but I find this revised test much harder to 

Also in the name setPseudoConcurrentSizeCourse the word "Course" doesn't 
fit. I'm not sure what you were meaning here? Perhaps just modifySize or 
emulateConcurrentSizeChange ?


On 28/03/2012 3:01 PM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
> Hi Sean,
> Am 26.03.2012 07:02, schrieb Sean Chou:
>> On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 5:09 AM, Ulf Zibis <Ulf.Zibis at
>> <mailto:Ulf.Zibis at>> wrote:
>>         Will you please provide a jtreg style testcase with main method ?
>>     Well, as I'm missing your agreement, that David's test
>>     implementation doesn't guarantee to test the right toArray method
>>     of AbstractCollection as I explained before, I'm afraid that
>>     additional effort would be for garbage.
>> Every testcase or fix goes this way, like the first testcase I
>> provided. If your suggestion is valuable, I don't think it will be wasted.
> Ok, here it is.
>>     Aside, as the instantiation of (several) ConcurrentHashMap
>>     subclassed test objects seems more expensive, I believe, my simple
>>     TestCollection would increase the performance of the testcases.
>> What's the exact problem you want to fix in this case?
> The execution time of jdk test cases.
> -Ulf

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list