Please review two corrections for java.time

roger riggs roger.riggs at
Mon Sep 9 12:48:13 UTC 2013

Hi David,

I found even on my VirturalBox machine it frequently came close to the 
.1ms target
and failed in one case.  Raising the time was to reduce/prevent 
intermittent failures.

Are other timing tests also sensitive to the Xcomp, how should tests be 
to be insensitive to that JVM option?

Are you otherwise ok with the changes?

Thanks, Roger

On 9/8/2013 10:43 PM, David Holmes wrote:
> Hi Roger,
> On 7/09/2013 3:58 AM, roger riggs wrote:
>> Please review for two corrections:
>> -  The java/time/tck/java/time/TCKLocalTime test failed on a slow 
>> machine;
>>      the test should be more lenient.   The test is not appropriate for
>> a conformance test
>>      and is moved to java/time/test/java/time/TestLocalTime.
> As per the bug report the issue is not slow machines per-se but the 
> use of Xcomp when running the test. I don't think the jck should ever 
> be run with Xcomp. It will be interesting to see if the change from 
> 100ms to 500ms cures the problem on all machines.
> Thanks,
> David
>> - The javadoc for the JapaneseEra.MEIJI era should indicate the start
>> date is 1868-01-01
>>    to be consistent with java.util.Calendar.  Note that java.time does
>> not permit dates before Meiji 6
>>    to be created since the calendar is not clearly defined until then.
>> Webrev:
>> Thanks, Roger

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list