On Fri, 21 Aug 2026 16:23:22 GMT, Fabian Meumertzheim <[email protected]> wrote:
> --------- > - [x] I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the [OpenJDK > Interim AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai). test/jdk/java/util/concurrent/forkjoin/GetMultipleWaiters.java line 87: > 85: throw new RuntimeException("expected " + > expected.getSimpleName() + ", got " + thrown[0]); > 86: } > 87: } Thanks for reporting and submitting a potential fix for this issue, @fmeum! I'd prefer if this was a junit regression test, that the different permutations were separated (to make it easier to comprehend), and that the test cleans up after itself (rather than using daemonicity). Is this something you'd like to take a stab at, or do you want me to propose how the regression test could look as described above? test/jdk/java/util/concurrent/forkjoin/GetMultipleWaiters.java line 138: > 136: fail(sb.toString()); > 137: } > 138: } I think we can avoid this method if we use an untimed join(), and instead instrument the test runner to have a shorter timeout, (it will then do a thread dump on failure anyway). Something like `@run junit/othervm/timeout=20 GetMultipleWaiters` ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32485#discussion_r3853241526 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32485#discussion_r3854321661
