> On 4 Mar 2015, at 17:56, Stuart Marks wrote:
>
> Hi Chris, Roger,
>
> Just as a background, the loop with System.gc() and sleep() was arrived at
> via review comments between Eric Wang and David Holmes. See this thread:
>
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2012-June/0105
Hi Chris, Roger,
Just as a background, the loop with System.gc() and sleep() was arrived at via
review comments between Eric Wang and David Holmes. See this thread:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2012-June/010592.html
which continued here:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/p
On 04/03/15 15:58, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Chris,
ok, though if System.gc is good enough it would not need a loop and
timeout logic.
Ah ok, so some common library function taking a Predicate, or similar. I
got you now.
It would be interesting to know if it ever needs to go through the loop
m
Hi Chris,
ok, though if System.gc is good enough it would not need a loop and
timeout logic.
It would be interesting to know if it ever needs to go through the loop
more than once.
Maybe some indication of that can be added to the test output.
Thanks, Roger
On 3/4/2015 10:57 AM, Chris Heg
On 04/03/15 15:17, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Chris,
looks fine.
Thanks Roger.
Do you suppose the test library should have a function that takes a set
of (Weak)Refs
and does whatever it takes to clear them (or timeout).
Well, the problem is: What is "whatever it takes"? The changes in this
tes
Hi Chris,
looks fine.
Do you suppose the test library should have a function that takes a set
of (Weak)Refs
and does whatever it takes to clear them (or timeout).
Perhaps even a public API in Runtime...
Roger
On 3/4/2015 9:59 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
This is a small, test only, review reque
This is a small, test only, review request to fix an intermittently
failing test.
It replaces a "bad" technique, heap exhaustion, with the "less bad"
technique of calling System.gc, potentially multiple times, to clear
weak references. With this change the test runs much quicker, and has
not
