Hi Jim,
In Unsafe.java: 632: the "Unable to allocate 98494837395: doesn't read
very well.
Please add " bytes" to the end.
I would probably drop "array" from all the messages but at least in the
String* cases.
As Martin notes, the array is an implementation detail.
(And i still prefer "implementation limit" over "VM limit".
Thanks, Roger
On 6/10/20 12:33 PM, Jim Laskey wrote:
On Jun 130, 2020, at 1:15 PM, Martin Buchholz <marti...@google.com> wrote:
I took a look at PriorityBlockingQueue.
Part of converting to ArraysSupport involves deleting the local orphan
MAX_ARRAY_SIZE; that needs to be done.
Removed.
---
It looks like
newCap > oldCap
is always true, so we should delete the test?
if (newCap > oldCap && queue == array)
---
If oldCap == MAX_ARRAY_SIZE wouldn't newCap == oldCap
In Pattern.java I see
+ throw new OutOfMemoryError("Requested array size exceeds
VM limit");
That wording doesn't seem useful to me - the use of an array is an
implementation detail, and the user didn't __request__ it.
Better seems the wording in ArraysSupport
throw new OutOfMemoryError("Required array length too large");
but if we're going to the trouble of composing a custom detail
message, I'd try harder to find one meaningful to the user of the API,
something like "pattern too large"
Done and done.
Thank you.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 5:15 AM Jim Laskey <james.las...@oracle.com> wrote:
Will push if no comments by EOB.
On Jun 8, 2020, at 2:22 PM, Jim Laskey <james.las...@oracle.com> wrote:
Revised to use a consistent error message. Modified AbstractStringBuilder and
PriorityBlockingQueue to use ArraysSupport.newLength(). Didn't modify
ByteArrayChannel and UnsyncByteArrayOutputStream since those changes would
require changes to module exporting.
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlaskey/8230744/webrev-03/index.html
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlaskey/8230744/webrev-03/index.html>
On Jun 3, 2020, at 11:24 AM, Jim Laskey <james.las...@oracle.com> wrote:
It's not the goal or role of this bug to fix the wrongs of the past, merely add
error messages to the exceptions. I raised the discussion as an issue. Clearly
there is a correct path to follow. If you think more effort is required then
file a bug. :-)
Cheers,
-- Jim
On Jun 2, 2020, at 7:13 PM, Stuart Marks <stuart.ma...@oracle.com> wrote:
On 6/2/20 6:52 AM, Jim Laskey wrote:
Revised to reflect requested changes.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlaskey/8230744/webrev-01/index.html
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlaskey/8230744/webrev-01/index.html>
On this, if all you're doing is changing exception messages, then I don't care very much,
modulo concerns about wording from others. If you start to get into changing the growth
logic (like the Math.addExact stuff) then please see my message on the related thread,
"Sometimes constraints are questionable."
Thanks,
s'marks
