On Fri, 19 Jul 2024 20:32:23 GMT, Bradford Wetmore <wetm...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>>> While this should work for the systems we use, be aware that it's not >>> guaranteed by the Java API. >>> It's probably fine, or you could also use the !=0?end-start:1 hack as a >>> backup. >>> >>> Otherwise, LGTM. >> >> Thank you for the review, I added the backup verification. >> >>> LGTM. Have you run test with iterations to ensure stability. This will be a >>> tier1 test so intermittent failures are not acceptable. >> >> 👍 This is a manual test. In any case it's stable, it was successfully ran >> hundreds of times. > >> > LGTM. Have you run test with iterations to ensure stability. This will be >> > a tier1 test so intermittent failures are not acceptable. >> >> 👍 This is a manual test. In any case it's stable, it was successfully ran >> hundreds of times. > > I see it was previously a `/manual` test, before that was an `@ignore`. The > reason it was moved to `@ignore` in 2003 was: > >> Exclude this test from regression tests since it is meant to measure >> performance and not regression testing; it can be run separately if needed. > > Is it slow enough these days that we couldn't remove the `/manual`? How > long is the test taking? > > @valeriepeng, any reason to keep/not keep this? > > I understand that the main purpose is to provide performance numbers and no > one will be watching it, but if it's not taking too much time, it's nice to > have the additional test for ensuring nothing went wrong when exercising the > code. > @bradfordwetmore It does not take much time, average ~12 seconds I could go either way. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20135#issuecomment-2245922445
