Nope. Just compiled it with 9-b81 and no such warnings are present.
> On Sep 14, 2015, at 9:55 AM, Marcus Lagergren <lagerg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ant test
>
> Does it spit out warnings like e.g.
>
> Temp.java:1: warning: Unsafe is internal proprietary API and may be removed
> in a future release
> import sun.misc.Unsafe;
> ^
> Temp.java:6: warning: Unsafe is internal proprietary API and may be removed
> in a future release
> private static Unsafe getUnsafe() {
> ^
> Temp.java:7: warning: Unsafe is internal proprietary API and may be removed
> in a future release
> return AccessController.doPrivileged(new PrivilegedAction<Unsafe>() {
> ^
> Temp.java:9: warning: Unsafe is internal proprietary API and may be removed
> in a future release
> public Unsafe run() {
> ^
> Temp.java:11: warning: Unsafe is internal proprietary API and may be removed
> in a future release
> final Field theUnsafeField =
> Unsafe.class.getDeclaredField("theUnsafe");
> ^
> Temp.java:13: warning: Unsafe is internal proprietary API and may be removed
> in a future release
> return (Unsafe)theUnsafeField.get(null);
> ^
> Temp.java:21: warning: Unsafe is internal proprietary API and may be removed
> in a future release
> private static Unsafe UNSAFE = getUnsafe();
> ^
> 7 warnings
>
> Because we don’t want compile warnings ;-)
>
> /M
>
>
>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 09:54, Attila Szegedi <attila.szeg...@oracle.com
>> <mailto:attila.szeg...@oracle.com>> wrote:
>>
>> What do you mean by “unsafe warning”?
>>
>>> On Sep 13, 2015, at 12:47 PM, Marcus Lagergren <lagerg...@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:lagerg...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1. Nicely done.
>>>
>>> Does this compile without unsafe warnings, though?
>>>
>>> /M
>>>
>>>> On 11 Sep 2015, at 18:00, Attila Szegedi <attila.szeg...@oracle.com
>>>> <mailto:attila.szeg...@oracle.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> e
>>>
>>
>
