Topic: OR operator represented by || Query: The expression evaluation of the operands, of OR operator, does it happen in parallel, when Java code runs, in the current versions?
On Sat 22 Jun, 2019, 3:22 AM <core-libs-dev-requ...@openjdk.java.net wrote: > Send core-libs-dev mailing list submissions to > core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/core-libs-dev > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > core-libs-dev-requ...@openjdk.java.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > core-libs-dev-ow...@openjdk.java.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of core-libs-dev digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: RFR (JDK13/java.xml) 8224157: BCEL: update to version > 6.3.1 (Lance Andersen) > 2. Re: RFR (JDK 14/java.xml) 8224157: BCEL: update to version > 6.3.1 (Joe Wang) > 3. Re: New candidate JEP: 356: Enhanced Pseudo-Random Number > Generators (mark.reinh...@oracle.com) > 4. Re: RFR (JDK13/java.xml) 8224157: BCEL: update to version > 6.3.1 (Lance Andersen) > 5. Re: RFR (JDK13/java.xml) 8224157: BCEL: update to version > 6.3.1 (Joe Wang) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 16:23:38 -0400 > From: Lance Andersen <lance.ander...@oracle.com> > To: Joe Wang <huizhe.w...@oracle.com> > Cc: core-libs-dev <core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net> > Subject: Re: RFR (JDK13/java.xml) 8224157: BCEL: update to version > 6.3.1 > Message-ID: <5208ac06-d2be-4c77-9b12-8b94b7012...@oracle.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Hi Joe, > > Overall looks OK. Its unfortunate to loose the formatting but given it > is not upstream, best to not have the additional work of going through this > exercise each time. > > I have no additional changes to propose outside of what Daniel caught. > > Even though there are a large number of files, the updates/impact would be > minimal if approved for JDFK 13. It might be easier though to just target > JDK 14 given where we are in the release cycle. > > HTH > > Lance > > On Jun 20, 2019, at 6:45 PM, Joe Wang <huizhe.w...@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > Please review an update to BCEL 6.3.1. This changeset will go into JDK13 > if approved, 14 if not. > > > > 1. Format > > The changeset looks big, the majority of the changes however were > only different in format (i.e. Const.java). Unlike previous updates, I'm > leaving the format as they are in the upstream source so that they won't > show up in future updates. The only change I made were those that had > extremely long lines. > > > > 2. Exclusions > > Since the BCEL component is for xml transform only, several classes, > that were not in the JDK, were excluded. Among them, JavaWrapper.java for > example can be problematic as it may use an user-specified classloader to > load arbitrary classes. It and related classes were therefore excluded. > > > > 3. Warnings > > Warnings were the main reason for the changes made to the original > source. It has been done in the previous update. For this update therefore, > I only had to re-apply them after making copies of the upstream source. > Still, I updated the LastModified field to indicate a modification to the > original source. > > > > 4. Deprecated fields to private > > Deprecated fields in the original source were changed to private ones > in previous update. The changes are inherited in this update. Again, the > LastModified fields are also updated. > > > > 5. Test > > Since the update does not affect the usage of the BCEL component, it > is essential to pass all of the existing tests. I've run the tests multiple > times and noted that all of the XML functional and unit tests passed, so > were JCK XML tests. I've also done a comparison between builds before and > after applying the BCEL update, and found no change in performance. > > > > JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8224157 > > webrevs: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk13/8224157/webrev/ > > > > Thanks, > > Joe > > > > <http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif> > <http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif> < > http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif> > <http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif>Lance Andersen| > Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037 > Oracle Java Engineering > 1 Network Drive > Burlington, MA 01803 > lance.ander...@oracle.com <mailto:lance.ander...@oracle.com> > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 13:32:42 -0700 > From: Joe Wang <huizhe.w...@oracle.com> > To: Lance Andersen <lance.ander...@oracle.com> > Cc: core-libs-dev <core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net> > Subject: Re: RFR (JDK 14/java.xml) 8224157: BCEL: update to version > 6.3.1 > Message-ID: <5d0d3eea.4010...@oracle.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Thanks Lance! > > Yes, JDK 14 it is, as Mark has asked us to retarget it to. > > Best, > Joe > > On 6/21/19, 1:23 PM, Lance Andersen wrote: > > Hi Joe, > > > > Overall looks OK. Its unfortunate to loose the formatting but given > > it is not upstream, best to not have the additional work of going > > through this exercise each time. > > > > I have no additional changes to propose outside of what Daniel caught. > > > > Even though there are a large number of files, the updates/impact > > would be minimal if approved for JDFK 13. It might be easier though > > to just target JDK 14 given where we are in the release cycle. > > > > HTH > > > > Lance > >> On Jun 20, 2019, at 6:45 PM, Joe Wang <huizhe.w...@oracle.com > >> <mailto:huizhe.w...@oracle.com>> wrote: > >> > >> Please review an update to BCEL 6.3.1. This changeset will go into > >> JDK13 if approved, 14 if not. > >> > >> 1. Format > >> The changeset looks big, the majority of the changes however were > >> only different in format (i.e. Const.java). Unlike previous updates, > >> I'm leaving the format as they are in the upstream source so that > >> they won't show up in future updates. The only change I made were > >> those that had extremely long lines. > >> > >> 2. Exclusions > >> Since the BCEL component is for xml transform only, several > >> classes, that were not in the JDK, were excluded. Among them, > >> JavaWrapper.java for example can be problematic as it may use an > >> user-specified classloader to load arbitrary classes. It and related > >> classes were therefore excluded. > >> > >> 3. Warnings > >> Warnings were the main reason for the changes made to the original > >> source. It has been done in the previous update. For this update > >> therefore, I only had to re-apply them after making copies of the > >> upstream source. Still, I updated the LastModified field to indicate > >> a modification to the original source. > >> > >> 4. Deprecated fields to private > >> Deprecated fields in the original source were changed to private > >> ones in previous update. The changes are inherited in this update. > >> Again, the LastModified fields are also updated. > >> > >> 5. Test > >> Since the update does not affect the usage of the BCEL component, > >> it is essential to pass all of the existing tests. I've run the tests > >> multiple times and noted that all of the XML functional and unit > >> tests passed, so were JCK XML tests. I've also done a comparison > >> between builds before and after applying the BCEL update, and found > >> no change in performance. > >> > >> JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8224157 > >> webrevs: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk13/8224157/webrev/ > >> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ejoehw/jdk13/8224157/webrev/> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Joe > >> > > > > <http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif> > > <http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif>< > http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif> > > <http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif>Lance > > Andersen| Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037 > > Oracle Java Engineering > > 1 Network Drive > > Burlington, MA 01803 > > lance.ander...@oracle.com <mailto:lance.ander...@oracle.com> > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 13:42:50 -0700 > From: mark.reinh...@oracle.com > To: guy.ste...@oracle.com > Cc: core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net > Subject: Re: New candidate JEP: 356: Enhanced Pseudo-Random Number > Generators > Message-ID: <20190621134250.968844...@eggemoggin.niobe.net> > Content-Type: text/plain > > 2019/6/21 13:22:17 -0700, guy.ste...@oracle.com: > > On Jun 21, 2019, at 2:36 PM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote: > >> By my count this JEP would add ten new public types to the java.util > >> package. Is it time to consider creating a java.util.random subpackage? > > > > Sure, that would be a completely reasonable move. Who should make that > > decision? > > I suggest that you propose it, as part of this JEP. > > It might make sense to put the key interface(s) directly in java.util, > with static factories for convenience. Up to you. > > - Mark > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 16:59:41 -0400 > From: Lance Andersen <lance.ander...@oracle.com> > To: Joe Wang <huizhe.w...@oracle.com> > Cc: core-libs-dev <core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net> > Subject: Re: RFR (JDK13/java.xml) 8224157: BCEL: update to version > 6.3.1 > Message-ID: <7e71d639-3e18-4156-92cc-734d3a77f...@oracle.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > The revised webrev looks fine Joe > > On Jun 21, 2019, at 4:20 PM, Joe Wang <huizhe.w...@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 6/21/19, 11:59 AM, Daniel Fuchs wrote: > >> Hi Joe, > >> > >> I promise, I will not grumble about the formatting and > >> weird white spaces [grumble grumble]... > > > > Someone at BCEL needs to re-format the source with a modern IDE ;-) > > > >> > >> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk13/8224157/webrev/src/java.xml/share/classes/com/sun/org/apache/bcel/internal/classfile/ConstantUtf8.java.frames.html > >> > >> Is the new import really needed here? > > > > No, good catch. > >> > >> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk13/8224157/webrev/src/java.xml/share/classes/com/sun/org/apache/bcel/internal/classfile/JavaClass.java.frames.html > >> > >> 232 if (!dir.isDirectory()) { > >> > >> I see use of SecuritySupport was dropped here and I think I agree, > >> as I don't see why isDirectory() would require it if mkdirs() doesn't. > > > > I honestly don't remember why I added that in the previous update. But > you're right, and all test run proved it. > > > >> > >> > >> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk13/8224157/webrev/src/java.xml/share/classes/com/sun/org/apache/bcel/internal/classfile/LineNumberTable.java.udiff.html > >> > >> Are the changes in toString() actually correct? > > > > No, it's not. Good catch again! The change in the last update was correct > >> > >> Otherwise I believe the rest looks mostly OK. > > > > Thanks Daniel! Here's an updated webrev: > > > > Full webrev (for the record) > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk13/8224157/webrev_02/ > > > > A short version of webrev_02 that includes the only files mentioned in > this review: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk13/8224157/webrev_02_short/ > > > > > > I'm re-running all tests. > > > > Best regards, > > Joe > > > >> > >> best regards, > >> > >> -- daniel > >> > >> On 20/06/2019 23:45, Joe Wang wrote: > >>> Please review an update to BCEL 6.3.1. This changeset will go into > JDK13 if approved, 14 if not. > >>> > >>> 1. Format > >>> The changeset looks big, the majority of the changes however were > only different in format (i.e. Const.java). Unlike previous updates, I'm > leaving the format as they are in the upstream source so that they won't > show up in future updates. The only change I made were those that had > extremely long lines. > >>> > >>> 2. Exclusions > >>> Since the BCEL component is for xml transform only, several > classes, that were not in the JDK, were excluded. Among them, > JavaWrapper.java for example can be problematic as it may use an > user-specified classloader to load arbitrary classes. It and related > classes were therefore excluded. > >>> > >>> 3. Warnings > >>> Warnings were the main reason for the changes made to the original > source. It has been done in the previous update. For this update therefore, > I only had to re-apply them after making copies of the upstream source. > Still, I updated the LastModified field to indicate a modification to the > original source. > >>> > >>> 4. Deprecated fields to private > >>> Deprecated fields in the original source were changed to private > ones in previous update. The changes are inherited in this update. Again, > the LastModified fields are also updated. > >>> > >>> 5. Test > >>> Since the update does not affect the usage of the BCEL component, > it is essential to pass all of the existing tests. I've run the tests > multiple times and noted that all of the XML functional and unit tests > passed, so were JCK XML tests. I've also done a comparison between builds > before and after applying the BCEL update, and found no change in > performance. > >>> > >>> JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8224157 > >>> webrevs: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk13/8224157/webrev/ > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Joe > >>> > >> > > <http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif> > <http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif> < > http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif> > <http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif>Lance Andersen| > Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037 > Oracle Java Engineering > 1 Network Drive > Burlington, MA 01803 > lance.ander...@oracle.com <mailto:lance.ander...@oracle.com> > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 14:51:15 -0700 > From: Joe Wang <huizhe.w...@oracle.com> > To: Lance Andersen <lance.ander...@oracle.com> > Cc: core-libs-dev <core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net> > Subject: Re: RFR (JDK13/java.xml) 8224157: BCEL: update to version > 6.3.1 > Message-ID: <5d0d5153.8030...@oracle.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Thanks Lance! > > Joe > > On 6/21/19, 1:59 PM, Lance Andersen wrote: > > The revised webrev looks fine Joe > >> On Jun 21, 2019, at 4:20 PM, Joe Wang <huizhe.w...@oracle.com > >> <mailto:huizhe.w...@oracle.com>> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 6/21/19, 11:59 AM, Daniel Fuchs wrote: > >>> Hi Joe, > >>> > >>> I promise, I will not grumble about the formatting and > >>> weird white spaces [grumble grumble]... > >> > >> Someone at BCEL needs to re-format the source with a modern IDE ;-) > >> > >>> > >>> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk13/8224157/webrev/src/java.xml/share/classes/com/sun/org/apache/bcel/internal/classfile/ConstantUtf8.java.frames.html > >>> < > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ejoehw/jdk13/8224157/webrev/src/java.xml/share/classes/com/sun/org/apache/bcel/internal/classfile/ConstantUtf8.java.frames.html> > > >>> > >>> > >>> Is the new import really needed here? > >> > >> No, good catch. > >>> > >>> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk13/8224157/webrev/src/java.xml/share/classes/com/sun/org/apache/bcel/internal/classfile/JavaClass.java.frames.html > >>> < > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ejoehw/jdk13/8224157/webrev/src/java.xml/share/classes/com/sun/org/apache/bcel/internal/classfile/JavaClass.java.frames.html> > > >>> > >>> > >>> 232 if (!dir.isDirectory()) { > >>> > >>> I see use of SecuritySupport was dropped here and I think I agree, > >>> as I don't see why isDirectory() would require it if mkdirs() doesn't. > >> > >> I honestly don't remember why I added that in the previous update. > >> But you're right, and all test run proved it. > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk13/8224157/webrev/src/java.xml/share/classes/com/sun/org/apache/bcel/internal/classfile/LineNumberTable.java.udiff.html > >>> < > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ejoehw/jdk13/8224157/webrev/src/java.xml/share/classes/com/sun/org/apache/bcel/internal/classfile/LineNumberTable.java.udiff.html> > > >>> > >>> > >>> Are the changes in toString() actually correct? > >> > >> No, it's not. Good catch again! The change in the last update was > correct > >>> > >>> Otherwise I believe the rest looks mostly OK. > >> > >> Thanks Daniel! Here's an updated webrev: > >> > >> Full webrev (for the record) > >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk13/8224157/webrev_02/ > >> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ejoehw/jdk13/8224157/webrev_02/> > >> > >> A short version of webrev_02 that includes the only files mentioned > >> in this review: > >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk13/8224157/webrev_02_short/ > >> > >> > >> I'm re-running all tests. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Joe > >> > >>> > >>> best regards, > >>> > >>> -- daniel > >>> > >>> On 20/06/2019 23:45, Joe Wang wrote: > >>>> Please review an update to BCEL 6.3.1. This changeset will go into > >>>> JDK13 if approved, 14 if not. > >>>> > >>>> 1. Format > >>>> The changeset looks big, the majority of the changes however > >>>> were only different in format (i.e. Const.java). Unlike previous > >>>> updates, I'm leaving the format as they are in the upstream source > >>>> so that they won't show up in future updates. The only change I > >>>> made were those that had extremely long lines. > >>>> > >>>> 2. Exclusions > >>>> Since the BCEL component is for xml transform only, several > >>>> classes, that were not in the JDK, were excluded. Among them, > >>>> JavaWrapper.java for example can be problematic as it may use an > >>>> user-specified classloader to load arbitrary classes. It and > >>>> related classes were therefore excluded. > >>>> > >>>> 3. Warnings > >>>> Warnings were the main reason for the changes made to the > >>>> original source. It has been done in the previous update. For this > >>>> update therefore, I only had to re-apply them after making copies > >>>> of the upstream source. Still, I updated the LastModified field to > >>>> indicate a modification to the original source. > >>>> > >>>> 4. Deprecated fields to private > >>>> Deprecated fields in the original source were changed to > >>>> private ones in previous update. The changes are inherited in this > >>>> update. Again, the LastModified fields are also updated. > >>>> > >>>> 5. Test > >>>> Since the update does not affect the usage of the BCEL > >>>> component, it is essential to pass all of the existing tests. I've > >>>> run the tests multiple times and noted that all of the XML > >>>> functional and unit tests passed, so were JCK XML tests. I've also > >>>> done a comparison between builds before and after applying the BCEL > >>>> update, and found no change in performance. > >>>> > >>>> JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8224157 > >>>> webrevs: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk13/8224157/webrev/ > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Joe > >>>> > >>> > > > > <http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif> > > <http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif>< > http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif> > > <http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif>Lance > > Andersen| Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037 > > Oracle Java Engineering > > 1 Network Drive > > Burlington, MA 01803 > > lance.ander...@oracle.com <mailto:lance.ander...@oracle.com> > > > > > > > > > End of core-libs-dev Digest, Vol 146, Issue 92 > ********************************************** >
