On Tue, 16 May 2023 21:00:35 GMT, Leonid Mesnik <lmes...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> > > The changes looks good. Just small suggestion. Any reasons why didn't add > > > the test? > > > > > > Thanks for the review Leonid! I guess I think about this test as too > > contrived to expose this particular bug and might not be that useful > > otherwise. But I'm not sure what the policy is about adding reproducer > > tests. > > Our policy is to include all regression test/cases/examples which could be > implemented as jtreg tests. A lot of regression tests cover some specific > bugs and corner cases. It is pretty fine. You could exclude the test from > tier1 if feel that we don't need. to run it every time. But generally, any > test coverage improvements are very welcome. > The only thing about the repro is that as I wrote in the bug comments it needs a specific artificial delay inside the vm to make it crash. Without it I couldn't reproduce it, at least running the test locally. Maybe running it several times in mach5 will show some crashes. That's why I also doubt if this test will actually be useful. But do you think it's still worth it to add it? ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13949#issuecomment-1550381949
