Hi,
Please review the fix for jdk11:
bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8201433
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aivanov/8201433/jdk11/webrev.00/
When the JVM is run with limited amount of memory, initCubemap function
called from BufImg_SetupICM can return NULL. It can lead to a
+1
-phil.
On 04/12/2018 08:25 AM, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
Hi,
Please review the fix for jdk11:
bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8201433
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aivanov/8201433/jdk11/webrev.00/
When the JVM is run with limited amount of memory, initCubemap
function cal
I was just directed to this look at this change.
I don't know why it is being reviewed exclusively on build-dev since no
build files are being changed.
50% of it should have been sent to 2d-dev and the rest on core-libs +
hotspot ..
Is this the current version of the change :
http://cr.openjdk
How can JNIEXPORT be different between 32 bit & 64 bit ?
I'm sure you saw compilation errors but I don't get why it failed for 32
only.
JNICALL (_stdcall) may be unnecessary on 64 bit Windows but that doesn't
explain why the 32 bit compiler would complain about inconsistent
application
of __d
Hi, Alexey.
Since the test requires 1g of memory, should we use this tag?:
* @requires os.maxMemory >= 1g
Otherwise the test may fail on start if amount of memory is not sufficient.
On 12/04/2018 08:25, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
Hi,
Please review the fix for jdk11:
bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.n
On 12/04/2018 19:38, Phil Race wrote:
I was just directed to this look at this change.
I don't know why it is being reviewed exclusively on build-dev since no
build files are being changed.
My bad! I tried to engage core-libs when the patch was ready but I
completely overlooked the fact that
On 12/04/2018 21:42, Phil Race wrote:
How can JNIEXPORT be different between 32 bit & 64 bit ?
I'm sure you saw compilation errors but I don't get why it failed for
32 only.
JNICALL (_stdcall) may be unnecessary on 64 bit Windows but that doesn't
explain why the 32 bit compiler would complain
Hi Sergey,
Thank you for your review.
Please take a look at the updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aivanov/8201433/jdk11/webrev.01/
On 12/04/2018 22:33, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
Hi, Alexey.
Since the test requires 1g of memory, should we use this tag?:
* @requires os.maxMemory >= 1g
Ot
I can sponsor this.
Steven R. Loomis
IBM Global Foundations Technology Team
Technical Lead, ICU for C/C++
Phone: 1-720-342-4930 https://ibm.biz/srloomis
E-mail: srloo...@us.ibm.com
- Original message -From: Phil Race To: Toshio 5 Nakamura , 2d-dev@openjdk.java.net, Steven R Loomis
the webrev also looks OK to me, I did not check the math yet.
Steven R. Loomis
IBM Global Foundations Technology Team
Technical Lead, ICU for C/C++
Phone: 1-720-342-4930 https://ibm.biz/srloomis
E-mail: srloo...@us.ibm.com
- Original message -From: Phil Race To: Toshio 5 Nakamura
Hi Phil/Alexey, thanks for adding the other lists .
> Is this the current version of the change :
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mbaesken/webrevs/8201226.2/ ?
Yes.
Best regards, Matthias
> -Original Message-
> From: Alexey Ivanov [mailto:alexey.iva...@oracle.com]
> Sent: Donnerstag,
11 matches
Mail list logo
