fixed NumberFormatException when core 63 was used in -Daffinity.reserved #86
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Thanks @m-anthony - could I suggest you add a test that would have failed with the old behaviour? |
|
Hi @m-anthony this sounds useful. Could you add a test that would have failed with the old behaviour? |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The fix for using -Daffinity.reserved with more than 64 core (#68) has an issue : to compute the bitset representing that mask, it uses under the hood Long.parseLong(substring, 16) where substring is at most 16 hexadecimal digits. Unfortunately, if the highest bit is set (so if core 63 is selected in the mask), it will cause a NumberFormatException because there is an overflow (because Java types are all signed).
This PR fixes that by splitting the parsing into 2 ints and combining them into a long