Got caught up with JVMLS this week… I searched but could not find a test, so i added one, see:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psandoz/jdk/JDK-8208362-direct-buffer-att/webrev/ <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psandoz/jdk/JDK-8208362-direct-buffer-att/webrev/> Paul. > On Jul 27, 2018, at 12:35 PM, Paul Sandoz <paul.san...@oracle.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jul 27, 2018, at 1:09 AM, Florian Weimer <f...@deneb.enyo.de> wrote: >> >> * Paul Sandoz: >> >>> I created this issue: >>> >>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8208362 >> >> Thanks. >> >>> The suggested fix requires a tweak though since an instance of a >>> DirectBuffer interface is passed. This is required because views >>> over direct ByteBuffers can be created. >> >> Noticed that as well. >> >>> diff -r 448cd909c9e2 >>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/nio/Direct-X-Buffer.java.template >>> --- a/src/java.base/share/classes/java/nio/Direct-X-Buffer.java.template >>> Thu Jul 26 11:53:59 2018 -0700 >>> +++ b/src/java.base/share/classes/java/nio/Direct-X-Buffer.java.template >>> Thu Jul 26 16:46:20 2018 -0700 >>> @@ -194,7 +194,8 @@ >>> #if[byte] >>> cleaner = null; >>> #end[byte] >>> - att = db; >>> + Object attachment = db.attachment(); >>> + att = (attachment == null ? db : attachment); >> >> This is essentially what I put through jtreg (jdk_core), without any >> obvious issues, > > Thanks for testing. > > >> but I had not time yet to file a bug and create a >> webrev. > > Ah, my apologies, i did not realize you had author status. > > >> >> The parenthesis seem unnecessary. If this is an official JDK coding >> style, it is not widely used. > > > It is unusual but I chose to keep consistent with the style in the source. > > Paul.
