Thanks, Ivan. 135 /** 136 * This method has the same contract as ensureCapacity, but is 137 * never synchronized. 138 */
This comment should be updated, since treatment of negative argument is completely different. Otherwise looks good. On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Ivan Gerasimov <ivan.gerasi...@oracle.com> wrote: > Hello! > > I added another regtest to perform some basic sanity checks wrt > StringBuilder's capacity. > In this test I we only operate on relatively small sizes. > A situation when capacity grows large is checked in a separate test, which > is ignored by default. > > Do you think this fix is good to go? > > BUGURL: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8149330 > WEBREV: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8149330/03/webrev/ > > Comments, suggestions are very welcome. > > Sincerely yours, > Ivan > > > > On 23.02.2016 20:29, Martin Buchholz wrote: >> >> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Ivan Gerasimov >> <ivan.gerasi...@oracle.com> wrote: >>> >>> While writing this, I just noticed that I actually made a mistake when >>> did >>> newCapacity < 0 check. >>> This wouldn't catch the overflow when the oldCapacity happens to be >>> Integer.MAX_VALUE (which is not possible with the current hotspot, but >>> may >>> become an issue one day). >> >> Well done! >> >> One interesting way that capacity may end up being Integer.MAX_VALUE >> is if we switch to char[] for storage. Then in LATIN1 mode you could >> store Integer.MAX_VALUE elements even without help from hotspot! >> >
