On Thu, 7 Mar 2024 10:15:51 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> As an intermediate fix to the test, switching to explicit usage of an
>> ExecutorService seems to do the trick to make this test reliably pass.
>>
>> With that said, this test (CHM::ToArray.java) seems to trigger an issue in
>> ForkJoinPo
On Thu, 7 Mar 2024 10:20:55 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> As an intermediate fix to the test, switching to explicit usage of an
>> ExecutorService seems to do the trick to make this test reliably pass.
>>
>> With that said, this test (CHM::ToArray.java) seems to trigger an issue in
>> ForkJoinPo
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 10:30:44 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
> As an intermediate fix to the test, switching to explicit usage of an
> ExecutorService seems to do the trick to make this test reliably pass.
>
> With that said, this test (CHM::ToArray.java) seems to trigger an issue in
> ForkJoinPool,
> As an intermediate fix to the test, switching to explicit usage of an
> ExecutorService seems to do the trick to make this test reliably pass.
>
> With that said, this test (CHM::ToArray.java) seems to trigger an issue in
> ForkJoinPool, so that would need to be fixed separately.
>
> Tagging
On Thu, 7 Mar 2024 10:15:51 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> As an intermediate fix to the test, switching to explicit usage of an
>> ExecutorService seems to do the trick to make this test reliably pass.
>>
>> With that said, this test (CHM::ToArray.java) seems to trigger an issue in
>> ForkJoinPo
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 10:30:44 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
> As an intermediate fix to the test, switching to explicit usage of an
> ExecutorService seems to do the trick to make this test reliably pass.
>
> With that said, this test (CHM::ToArray.java) seems to trigger an issue in
> ForkJoinPool,
