On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 17:01:53 GMT, Doug Simon wrote:
> The `java/util/concurrent/Executors/UnreferencedExecutor.java` test can fail
> when run on libgraal and `-Xcomp` is specified. The problem is that libgraal
> in `-Xcomp` temporarily causes some extra memory pressure (probably due to
>
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 20:46:17 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> Update the documentation for `@return` tag of `putIfAbsent` to match the
>> main description. `putIfAbsent` uses the same wording as `put` for its
>> `@return` tag, but that is incorrect. `putIfAbsent` never returns the
>>
On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 00:40:45 GMT, Shaojin Wen wrote:
> Should we declare the BigDecimal(CharSequence,MathContext) method as public?
> Scenarios like
>
On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 22:56:38 GMT, Shaojin Wen wrote:
>> The current BigDecimal(String) constructor calls String#toCharArray, which
>> has a memory allocation.
>>
>>
>> public BigDecimal(String val) {
>> this(val.toCharArray(), 0, val.length()); // allocate char[]
>> }
>>
>>
>> When the
> Adds differentiation between direct and transitive short circuiting which
> could prevent pushing downstream in the finisher for built-ins that were not
> `collect()`.
>
> Creating this as a draft PR for now, just need to run some benchmarks to
> validate no significant regressions first.
> Adds differentiation between direct and transitive short circuiting which
> could prevent pushing downstream in the finisher for built-ins that were not
> `collect()`.
>
> Creating this as a draft PR for now, just need to run some benchmarks to
> validate no significant regressions first.
> Adds differentiation between direct and transitive short circuiting which
> could prevent pushing downstream in the finisher for built-ins that were not
> `collect()`.
>
> Creating this as a draft PR for now, just need to run some benchmarks to
> validate no significant regressions first.
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:27:13 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
> Adds differentiation between direct and transitive short circuiting which
> could prevent pushing downstream in the finisher for built-ins that were not
> `collect()`.
>
> Creating this as a draft PR for now, just need to run some
On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 17:49:51 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
> No changes in libTestDowncallStack.c (not even minor ones) ?
No, there was a 'missing' space between the prefix parameters and the actual
parameters of the stack variants, and between the arguments passed when that
callback was
> The current BigDecimal(String) constructor calls String#toCharArray, which
> has a memory allocation.
>
>
> public BigDecimal(String val) {
> this(val.toCharArray(), 0, val.length()); // allocate char[]
> }
>
>
> When the length is greater than 18, create a char[]
>
>
> boolean
> The current BigDecimal(String) constructor calls String#toCharArray, which
> has a memory allocation.
>
>
> public BigDecimal(String val) {
> this(val.toCharArray(), 0, val.length()); // allocate char[]
> }
>
>
> When the length is greater than 18, create a char[]
>
>
> boolean
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:27:13 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
> Adds differentiation between direct and transitive short circuiting which
> could prevent pushing downstream in the finisher for built-ins that were not
> `collect()`.
>
> Creating this as a draft PR for now, just need to run some
Vote: yes
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 23:41:53 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> This code change adds an alternative implementation of user-based
> authorization `Subject` APIs that doesn't depend on Security Manager APIs.
> Depending on if the Security Manager is allowed, the methods store the
> current subject
> During analysing a customer case I figured out that we have an inconsistency
> between documentation and actual behavior in class
> com.sun.jndi.ldap.Connection. The [method documentation of
>
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 16:09:18 GMT, Aleksei Efimov wrote:
>> Christoph Langer has updated the pull request with a new target base due to
>> a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 12 additional
>>
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 16:01:34 GMT, Aleksei Efimov wrote:
>> Christoph Langer has updated the pull request with a new target base due to
>> a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 12 additional
>>
On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 00:00:53 GMT, Shaojin Wen wrote:
>> The current BigDecimal(String) constructor calls String#toCharArray, which
>> has a memory allocation.
>>
>>
>> public BigDecimal(String val) {
>> this(val.toCharArray(), 0, val.length()); // allocate char[]
>> }
>>
>>
>> When the
On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 00:00:53 GMT, Shaojin Wen wrote:
>> The current BigDecimal(String) constructor calls String#toCharArray, which
>> has a memory allocation.
>>
>>
>> public BigDecimal(String val) {
>> this(val.toCharArray(), 0, val.length()); // allocate char[]
>> }
>>
>>
>> When the
On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 14:45:50 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> This code change adds an alternative implementation of user-based
>> authorization `Subject` APIs that doesn't depend on Security Manager APIs.
>> Depending on if the Security Manager is allowed, the methods store the
>> current subject
Adds differentiation between direct and transitive short circuiting which could
prevent pushing downstream in the finisher for built-ins that were not
`collect()`.
Creating this as a draft PR for now, just need to run some benchmarks to
validate no significant regressions first.
-
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:27:13 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
> Adds differentiation between direct and transitive short circuiting which
> could prevent pushing downstream in the finisher for built-ins that were not
> `collect()`.
>
> Creating this as a draft PR for now, just need to run some
On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 17:15:49 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
>> This is a draft PR with a potential solution to 8328366 without regressing
>> 8327501.
>>
>> @DougLea To avoid regressions in the future, where would regression tests
>> for this ideally be located?
>
>
Vote: yes
On 3/19/24 8:19 AM, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Hi,
I hereby nominate Per-Ake Minborg (pminborg) [1] to Membership in the Core Libraries
Group [4].
Per-Ake is an OpenJDK Reviewer, a committer in the
Leyden and Panama projects, and a member of Oracle’s
Java Core Libraries team.
Per-Ake
On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 10:24:23 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> What we really want is some form of API to extend/patch an existing jimage
> preserving everything else. Perhaps I should look into that. Would that be
> worth doing?
I think avoiding the plugin pipeline in creating a linkable image
> # Issue
> - JDK-8326853 Incorrect `@since` Tags for Charset Related Methods Added in
> JDK 10
>
> I changed the `@since` tags to better accurately show when the methods and
> constructors were introduced.
Nizar Benalla has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional
commits
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:34:25 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> Update the code gen code in CallGeneratorHelper to reflect the latest state
>> of the libTest(Downcall/Upcall)(Stack).c and shared.h files.
>>
>> - The previous code wanted users to pipe stdout into a file. But, since we
>> have 5 files
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 17:02:36 GMT, Nizar Benalla wrote:
>> # Issue
>> - JDK-8326853 Incorrect @\since Tags for Charset Related Methods Added in
>> JDK 10
>>
>> I changed the @\since tags to better accurately show when the methods and
>> constructors were introduced.
>
> Nizar Benalla has
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 12:16:29 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
> This is a draft PR with a potential solution to 8328366 without regressing
> 8327501.
>
> @DougLea To avoid regressions in the future, where would regression tests for
> this ideally be located?
This is a draft PR with a potential solution to 8328366 without regressing
8327501.
@DougLea To avoid regressions in the future, where would regression tests for
this ideally be located?
-
Commit messages:
- Adding test case to verify that it is possible to change the CCL of the
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 12:16:29 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
> This is a draft PR with a potential solution to 8328366 without regressing
> 8327501.
>
> @DougLea To avoid regressions in the future, where would regression tests for
> this ideally be located?
@DougLea @AlanBateman Added a regression
On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 20:15:39 GMT, Archie Cobbs wrote:
> `GZIPInputStream`, when looking for a concatenated stream, relies on what the
> underlying `InputStream` says is how many bytes are `available()`. But this
> is inappropriate because `InputStream.available()` is just an estimate and is
>
On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 14:45:50 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> This code change adds an alternative implementation of user-based
>> authorization `Subject` APIs that doesn't depend on Security Manager APIs.
>> Depending on if the Security Manager is allowed, the methods store the
>> current subject
> This code change adds an alternative implementation of user-based
> authorization `Subject` APIs that doesn't depend on Security Manager APIs.
> Depending on if the Security Manager is allowed, the methods store the
> current subject differently. See the spec change in the `Subject.java` file
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 22:53:55 GMT, Archie Cobbs wrote:
>> `GZIPInputStream`, when looking for a concatenated stream, relies on what
>> the underlying `InputStream` says is how many bytes are `available()`. But
>> this is inappropriate because `InputStream.available()` is just an estimate
>>
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 22:53:55 GMT, Archie Cobbs wrote:
>> `GZIPInputStream`, when looking for a concatenated stream, relies on what
>> the underlying `InputStream` says is how many bytes are `available()`. But
>> this is inappropriate because `InputStream.available()` is just an estimate
>>
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 17:58:46 GMT, Bill Huang wrote:
>> This task addresses an essential aspect of our testing infrastructure: the
>> proper handling and cleanup of temporary files and socket files created
>> during test execution. The motivation behind these changes is to prevent the
>>
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 18:05:31 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
> Thanks for the details. I feel the pain in extending jlink for this work as
> the current jlink implementation is not easily understandable and has been
> yearning for rewrite in my perspective (looking forward to Project Leyden's
>
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 14:59:19 GMT, Goetz Lindenmaier wrote:
> …rve enough space for 2097152KB object heap
>
> I would like to fix this as the two related issues mentioned in the JBS bug.
> We see it currently in most GHA runs.
This pull request has now been integrated.
Changeset: eebcc218
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 14:59:19 GMT, Goetz Lindenmaier wrote:
> …rve enough space for 2097152KB object heap
>
> I would like to fix this as the two related issues mentioned in the JBS bug.
> We see it currently in most GHA runs.
GHA failure: known Risc-V build problem.
Thanks for the reviews!
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 22:26:22 GMT, Stuart Marks wrote:
>> I think you are overthinking this somewhat Ramki. I don't see a practical
>> (non discrete-math) distinction between "some" and "any", so would not
>> object to that single word change if it helps. But "potential" should remain
>> as it
41 matches
Mail list logo
