RFR [9] - 8060052: FutureTask; fix underflow when timeout = Long.MIN_VALUE

[Chris Hegarty]

Thanks for the review Martin.

Since this change may be backported to 8u, then I’ll keep the test, as the JCK8(a) may not contain the new TCK test from the 166 CVS.

-Chris.

On 10 Oct 2014, at 18:40, Martin Buchholz <martinrb at google.com> wrote:

> Thanks and approved!
> 
> Seems suitable for a backport to 8u if you want to do that.
> 
> Personally I would not add the openjdk test, but use noreg-jck, but up to you.  Your test is certainly more focused on the bug fix than our jsr166 tck test.
> 
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Chris Hegarty <chris.hegarty at oracle.com> wrote:
> This is a formal review request for pulling the latest FutureTask from the 166 CVS.
> 
> Webrev:
>    http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8060052/webrev.00/webrev/
> 
> The most significant issue being addresses is that task.get(Long.MIN_VALUE, NANOSECONDS) does not timeout for a really really long time, when it should throw TimeoutException almost immediately. There is some other refactoring around consistent usage of Unsafe.
> 
> I took the liberty of adding a trivial test to give addition coverage in OpenJDK, but there is a TCK test in the 166 CVS that exercises this, and in fact the sync'ing of that test into the JCK 9 ea is what promoted this RFR.
> 
> -Chris.
>