On 17.03.2014 2:52, Ulf Zibis wrote:
Am 16.03.2014 23:37, schrieb Ivan Gerasimov:
Here is yet another iteration of the fix:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8014066/3/webrev/
2)
Kept the check for 'fromIndex toIndex' in removeRange().
While I understand that this should not add anything
On 16/03/2014 16:52, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Would you please take a look at the updated webrev with your
suggestions incorporated:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/6943190/3/webrev/
Ivan - I see that a number of the tests have been changed to /othervm
and I'm wondering what the reason
Thank you Alan!
On 17.03.2014 11:50, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 16/03/2014 16:52, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Would you please take a look at the updated webrev with your
suggestions incorporated:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/6943190/3/webrev/
Ivan - I see that a number of the tests have
Hi Mandy,
sorry for the delay. You are right, the shell script isn't needed. I
updated the change as suggested by you in the mail you referenced.
Here's the new webrev (tested on Linux/AIX/Solaris):
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/8037013_2/webrev/
OK, to push now?
Thank you and
ping
On 12 March 2014 10:48, Stephen Colebourne scolebou...@joda.org wrote:
This is a request for review of this bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8035099
The implementation for LocalTime with(MILLI_OF_DAY, n) and LocalTime
with(MICRO_OF_DAY, n) fails to match the specification.
To confirm, this counts as a review yes?
Stephen
On 12 March 2014 14:27, Chris Hegarty chris.hega...@oracle.com wrote:
The change look ok to me too.
There is a change in behavior here, but I don't expect it to be surprising (
no NPE where there once was ), so I think it should be fine for
ping
On 12 March 2014 12:29, Stephen Colebourne scolebou...@joda.org wrote:
This is a request for review of this bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8033662
and the duplicate:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8033659
The javadoc of the method
Hi Ivan,
Just to see the effect of the change, I ran the test without the code
change and it reported
331 failures and only 1 IndexOutOfBoundsException not thrown and that
was in java.util.Collections$SingletonMap.
(I can't appreciate the error reporting style with just a stack trace;
On 17 Mar 2014, at 11:17, Stephen Colebourne scolebou...@joda.org wrote:
To confirm, this counts as a review yes?
Yes. Sorry if this wasn't clear.
-Chris.
Stephen
On 12 March 2014 14:27, Chris Hegarty chris.hega...@oracle.com wrote:
The change look ok to me too.
There is a change
Hi,
This looks fine (not a Reviewer).
I'm checking on how to handle the change in TCK tests.
The same question (and answer) applies to JDK-8036818: DateTimeFormatter
withResolverFields() fails to accept null
Roger
On 3/12/2014 6:48 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
This is a request for
Hello.
This review request is for the new macro, which simplify conversion to
jboolean. It will be useful for fixing parfait warnings.
We have a lot of places, where we cast some type to jboolean:
BOOL = retVal;
return (jboolean) retVal;
WARNING: Expecting value of JNI primitive type
Looks fine. (not a Reviewer)
On 3/12/2014 6:52 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
This is a request for review of this bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8036785
During development, ChronoLocalDate had a generic type parameter. It
was removed during the development of JSR-310. The
On Mar 15, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Ulf Zibis ulf.zi...@cosoco.de wrote:
Am 14.03.2014 17:10, schrieb Paul Sandoz:
I'm willing to believe for-loop over array is as efficient as fortran-style
loop
+for (E e : a) {
+action.accept(e);
+}
Yeah, i
2014/3/17 1:41 -0700, paul.san...@oracle.com:
On Mar 15, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Ulf Zibis ulf.zi...@cosoco.de wrote:
...
I more like the given style with less spaces:
3854 for (int i=0; ia.length; i++)
It better visualizes the 3 parts of the for statement.
Subjectively that
Hi guys,
While playing with JDK 9 javadoc command I noticed that it
seems to treat all single method interfaces as if they were
functional interfaces - even though they don't have the
@FunctionalInterface annotation.
For instance - I did 'make docs' - and I'm seeing this text
in the javadoc for
Hi Sergey,
Thanks, you are right! I did not realize it copied the array into a local
variable, but that makes sense.
Here is the byte code generated by javac (9) for two different methods:
void x() {
for (Object o : a) {
System.out.println(o);
}
}
Hello,
Please review fix for adding back @SuppressWarnings tag
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ksrini/8037529/webrev.0/
removed inadvertently with the push for
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ksrini/8037221/
Remi, can you please facilitate getting this fix back into the ASM
source base ?
this will
Am 17.03.2014 17:36, schrieb Paul Sandoz:
Hi Sergey,
Thanks, you are right! I did not realize it copied the array into a local
variable, but that makes sense.
Here is the byte code generated by javac (9) for two different methods:
.
Thanks from me too, this is great work.
I floated my
On 17/03/2014 16:28, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Hi guys,
While playing with JDK 9 javadoc command I noticed that it
seems to treat all single method interfaces as if they were
functional interfaces - even though they don't have the
@FunctionalInterface annotation.
For instance - I did 'make docs' -
On 17/03/2014 10:48, Volker Simonis wrote:
Hi Mandy,
sorry for the delay. You are right, the shell script isn't needed. I
updated the change as suggested by you in the mail you referenced.
Here's the new webrev (tested on Linux/AIX/Solaris):
On 17/03/2014 09:06, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Thank you Alan!
These two tests used the commands run from non very common location
(/usr/bin/ instead of /bin/), so I suspect they have been rarely run.
As it follows from the summaries, one of them ensures the VM doesn't
crash; the other checks,
Am 17.03.2014 17:08, schrieb mark.reinh...@oracle.com:
2014/3/17 1:41 -0700, paul.san...@oracle.com:
On Mar 15, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Ulf Zibis ulf.zi...@cosoco.de wrote:
...
I more like the given style with less spaces:
3854 for (int i=0; ia.length; i++)
It better visualizes the
Will forward port it. I will send an email once it is done.
Regards,
Bhavesh.
- Original Message -
From: michel.trud...@oracle.com
To: alan.bate...@oracle.com, bhavesh.x.pa...@oracle.com
Cc: daniel.fu...@oracle.com, core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 3:50:43 PM
- Original Message -
On 3/3/14 2:49 PM, Omair Majid wrote:
* David Holmes david.hol...@oracle.com [2014-02-28 18:48]:
There are three pieces to all of this:
1. Generating debug symbols in the binaries (via gcc -g or whatever)
2. Generating debuginfo files (zipped or not) (FDS)
24 matches
Mail list logo
