RFR: JDK-8222930: ConcurrentSkipListMapTest.clone() broken since jdk10

[Adam Farley8]

Hi All,

Reviews and feedback requested for the fix.

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~afarley/8222930.1/jdk13/webrev 

Martin: Thanks for the testcase. I've replaced the old test in the webrev 
with your generalized one. :)

Best Regards

Adam Farley 
IBM Runtimes


Adam Farley8/UK/IBM wrote on 25/04/2019 13:47:13:

> From: Adam Farley8/UK/IBM
> To: Stuart Marks <stuart.marks at oracle.com>
> Cc: Java Core Libs <core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> Date: 25/04/2019 13:47
> Subject: Re: RFR: JDK-8222930: ConcurrentSkipListMapTest.clone() 
> broken since jdk10
> 
> Hi Stuart,
> 
> Whoops, typo. Thanks for catching that. 
> 
> Ditto for Martin, who has modified the bug. :)
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Adam Farley 
> IBM Runtimes

> 
> Stuart Marks <stuart.marks at oracle.com> wrote on 24/04/2019 17:59:17:
> 
> > From: Stuart Marks <stuart.marks at oracle.com>
> > To: Adam Farley8 <adam.farley at uk.ibm.com>
> > Cc: Java Core Libs <core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> > Date: 24/04/2019 17:59
> > Subject: Re: RFR: JDK-8222930: ConcurrentSkipListMapTest.clone() 
> > broken since jdk10
> > 
> > Hi Adam,
> > 
> > Thanks for finding this bug!
> > 
> > This is a bug in ConcurrentSkipListMap itself, not some test named 
> > ConcurrentSkipListMapTest. I'd suggest changing the bug summary 
> line and the 
> > commit message accordingly.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > s'marks
> > 
> > On 4/24/19 9:20 AM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
> > > ConcurrentSkipListMapTest.clone() produces a clone that shares the 
array
> > > size variable of the original, and then doubles it.
> > > 
> > > So both arrays, original and clone, tell the user that each is twice 
as
> > > big as it actually is.
> > > 
> > > The proposed fix is to simply set the clone's array size variable to 
null
> > > during creation.
> > > 
> > > Fix and test code available.
> > > 
> > > Reviews and sponsor requested.
> > > 
> > > Webrev: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?
> > u=http-3A__cr.openjdk.java.net_-7Eafarley_8222930.
> > 0_jdk13_webrev_&d=DwICaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=P5m8KWUXJf-
> > 
> 
CeVJc0hDGD9AQ2LkcXDC0PMV9ntVw5Ho&m=9_BHLxc2OwO4OJABunATso0Ej3_keQ0c5uQJZ4AwSfk&s=0gBgd8gUhNlM26eNWxBbpnIAsFJPwnOtsmT6qH72NPM&e=
> > > 
> > > Bug: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?
> > 
> 
u=https-3A__bugs.openjdk.java.net_browse_JDK-2D8222930&d=DwICaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-
> > siA1ZOg&r=P5m8KWUXJf-
> > 
> 
CeVJc0hDGD9AQ2LkcXDC0PMV9ntVw5Ho&m=9_BHLxc2OwO4OJABunATso0Ej3_keQ0c5uQJZ4AwSfk&s=vNk7C72hr8FqiYLJEVvCR69vlhPuT7zSIAiJ9Tl91JQ&e=
> > > 
> > > Best Regards
> > > 
> > > Adam Farley
> > > IBM Runtimes
> > > 
> > > P.S. Apparently this has been broken since JDK 10, so we should look 
at
> > > backporting (at least to 11 and 12) once this is in.
> > > 
> > > Unless stated otherwise above:
> > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with 
number
> > > 741598.
> > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire 
PO6 3AU
> > > 
> > 
> 
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with 
> number 741598. 
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 
3AU

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU