David Daney wrote:
Gary Benson wrote:
David Daney wrote:
Gary Benson wrote:
...I'll commit my original patch for now.
I hate to sound like I have a burr under the saddle, but does
anybody see any merit whatsoever in changing the exception text
as I suggested in my previous
Tom Tromey wrote:
Twisti == Christian Thalinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Twisti Yeah, i didn't take it personally :-) Of course i see your
Twisti point, but what i'm trying to say is, if we ever want to
Twisti catch up (or even be better) than sun or other proprietary
Twisti JVMs, we should
David Daney wrote:
Gary Benson wrote:
...I'll commit my original patch for now.
I hate to sound like I have a burr under the saddle, but does
anybody see any merit whatsoever in changing the exception text
as I suggested in my previous response to the patch?
What did you suggest? I saw
Gary Benson wrote:
David Daney wrote:
Gary Benson wrote:
...I'll commit my original patch for now.
I hate to sound like I have a burr under the saddle, but does
anybody see any merit whatsoever in changing the exception text
as I suggested in my previous response to the patch?
What did
David == David Daney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David I hate to sound like I have a burr under the saddle, but does anybody
David see any merit whatsoever in changing the exception text as I suggested
David in my previous response to the patch?
Yes, I was in favor of this as well.
Tom
On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 14:42 +, Gary Benson wrote:
public void write (int oneByte) throws IOException
{
+if (out == null)
+ throw new IOException(Bad file descriptor);
+
out.write(oneByte);
I don't know if this is performance critical code or is used very often,
but
Christian Thalinger wrote:
I don't know if this is performance critical code or is used very often,
but this seems to be a special case and i'd suggest something like:
public void write (int oneByte) throws IOException
{
try {
out.write(oneByte);
return;
} catch
On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 10:00 -0600, Archie Cobbs wrote:
That's getting into the micro-optimzation realm, which is
fraught with danger and mistaken assumptions :-) E.g., on
some machines the time overhead of setting up a try/catch in
a method that wouldn't otherwise have one is higher than
the
Christian Thalinger wrote:
That's getting into the micro-optimzation realm, which is
fraught with danger and mistaken assumptions :-) E.g., on
some machines the time overhead of setting up a try/catch in
a method that wouldn't otherwise have one is higher than
the single comparison required to
Christian Thalinger wrote:
On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 10:00 -0600, Archie Cobbs wrote:
That's getting into the micro-optimzation realm, which is
fraught with danger and mistaken assumptions :-) E.g., on
some machines the time overhead of setting up a try/catch in
a method that wouldn't otherwise
On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 13:32 -0600, Archie Cobbs wrote:
You say the generated code is smaller but that depends on who generates
the code (if you mean the generated Java bytecode, I'd guess you're wrong
there too because of the extra exception table required). And that depends
on which VM you're
Christian Thalinger wrote:
what i'm trying to say is, if we ever want to catch up (or even be
better) than sun or other proprietary JVMs, we should think about
optimizing some core functions in classpath...
I definitely agree there.
-Archie
Twisti == Christian Thalinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Twisti Yeah, i didn't take it personally :-) Of course i see your point, but
Twisti what i'm trying to say is, if we ever want to catch up (or even be
Twisti better) than sun or other proprietary JVMs, we should think about
Twisti
Gary Benson wrote:
Hi all,
Opening a java.io.RandomAccessFile in read-only mode with a security
manager in force requires the permission to write file descriptors.
The attached patch fixes. Anyone mind if I commit?
Cheers,
Gary
14 matches
Mail list logo
