Yes :-) -Joe
On 01/15/2014 08:04 AM, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
Given the identified items are changed accordingly is this approved? Thanks, Brian ----- Original Message ----- From: joe.da...@oracle.com To: brian.burkhal...@oracle.com Cc: core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 7:28:11 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: Re: JDK 9 RFR of 8030814: Long.parseUnsignedLong should throw exception on too large input Hi Brian, Lots good other than a few quibbles: We usually use /* * */ for long multi-line comments rather than // // // In the test update, we don't usually include mention of the bug id other than the @bug line. Thanks, -Joe On 1/14/2014 11:56 AM, Brian Burkhalter wrote:Please see the updated webrev http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8030814/webrev.3/. Hopefully my verbose description of the very clever overflow test is accurate and understandable. Also, I cleaned up the JTREG test a bit and added some tests based on the boundary values which split the range of the quantity "guard." Thanks, Brian
