RE: Integer overflow in _Jv_CondWait

[Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>]

Boehm, Hans writes:
 > Note that as of Java 5, it is always acceptable for Object.wait() to
 > return early.  Hence the original behavior was a severe performance bug,
 > but technically correct, unless we use _Jv_CondWait with different
 > assumptions internally.  (Apparently a lot of pre-1.5 implementations
 > also exhibit this behavior.  But the bugs were fixed by a spec change in
 > 1.5.  And I think the 1.5 spec is probably the correct one.)

It's the "severe performance bug" part that people were complaining
about.  :-)

 > By the same token, it would probably be slightly preferable to turn an
 > overflow into the longest possible finite wait.

That's what I first wrote, but then I changed it because I convinced
myself it didn't matter.  I'm rather hoping that when the UNIX epoch
rolls over, any POSIX threads implementations still in use will have
changed this field into a long ...

Andrew.