On Feb 27, 2014, at 12:32 AM, Brian Burkhalter <brian.burkhal...@oracle.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 26, 2014, at 1:29 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote: > >>> I made all suggested changes except the third line below. Why do we test >>> for equality with -3? If the primitive int default value of zero is used, >>> for firstNonzeroIntNumPlusTwo, as it is, then we should still test whether >>> fn equals -2, n'est-ce pas? >>> >> >> Oops, Oui. You can probably tell i was experimenting with PlusThree to take >> into account a 0 magnitude. > > So may I obtain a +1 from a JDK 9 Reviewer now? > Indeed you may. >>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> We can revisit and clean things up if/when the JMM is updated. >>> >>> Is there an issue for JMM update to which a comment with a link to this >>> thread could be added? >>> >> >> No, there are no issues yet, the discussions are still in flux and nothing >> concrete has been decided yet. Probably the best way to track as a reminder >> is to add a new issue for BigInteger to revisit stable fields (JMM) and >> Unsafe use (Enhanced Volatiles). > > I added a task https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8035906 for this > which is linked to another pre-existing one which I thought related. > OK. Paul.
