On 25 February 2015 at 19:24, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> On 02/25/2015 04:37 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> Seems a little silly to be spending time debugging openjdk bugs.
>> Can we just set Jenkins up to use an Oracle released JDK?
>
> Yeah sure, it might be a waste of time, it is still annoying to see
On 02/25/2015 04:37 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Seems a little silly to be spending time debugging openjdk bugs.
> Can we just set Jenkins up to use an Oracle released JDK?
Yeah sure, it might be a waste of time, it is still annoying to see
these test failures and they might also happen in the wild
Hey Mark,
Very helpful and well put. My email was far too terse and generic. You're
absolutely right; a bug is a bug and an unimplemented feature is still a
valid request. It would be bad form to close valid issues. I apologize
for my poorly stated message.
Your details are spot on for what I
Seems a little silly to be spending time debugging openjdk bugs.
Can we just set Jenkins up to use an Oracle released JDK?
On 2/25/15 2:01 AM, t...@apache.org wrote:
> Repository: commons-math
> Updated Branches:
> refs/heads/master 6b1b59288 -> ccd0fd51a
>
>
> Temp changes for analyzing test f
2015-02-23 21:47 GMT+01:00 Oliver Heger :
>
>
> Am 23.02.2015 um 21:35 schrieb Benedikt Ritter:
> > Oliver Heger has raised concerns about this commit in JIRA [1]:
> >
> >> This is a strong change in the behavior of this class. The main property
> > of atomic initializers was that they are non
> >
Running the tests with diagnostic options enabled, I see the following:
Running
org.apache.commons.math4.analysis.integration.gauss.HermiteParametricTest
Compiled method (c2) 25704 794
org.apache.commons.math4.util.FastMath::pow (635 bytes)
total in heap [0xf37f3ac8,0xf37f4bc0] = 4344
reloc
I wonder if in this case the problem is related to branch prediction or
instruction re-ordering.
The FastMath.pow() method has a lot of ifs to handle special cases, but
they are all independent and and handled in sequence. No results are
calculated or stored in them, so the JVM might wrongly assum
+1
Jacques
Le 25/02/2015 08:51, Mark Thomas a écrit :
On 25/02/2015 03:31, Carl Hall wrote:
I'd like to start closing JIRA tickets that haven't seen any response or
activity in a long time.
Why?
Any objections to cleaning out old JIRA tickets
without activity?
Yes. A bug is still a bug and
