hg: jdk8/tl/jdk: 7084032: test/java/net/Inet6Address/B6558853.java fails on Windows XP/2003 if IPv6

2011-09-03 Thread chris . hegarty
Changeset: 5b8f8397379f Author:chegar Date: 2011-09-03 07:46 +0100 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/5b8f8397379f 7084032: test/java/net/Inet6Address/B6558853.java fails on Windows XP/2003 if IPv6 Reviewed-by: chegar Contributed-by: kurchi.subhra.ha...@oracle.com !

Re: JDK 8 code review request for 6838776 Defer initialization of static fields in java.math.BigInteger

2011-09-03 Thread Sebastian Sickelmann
Looks good to me. Nice pattern to use static initialization on first usage of UnsafeHolder instead of using lazy initialization code with double-check-ideom for synchronizing in the two accessing methods. It should works for all vm i have workes with (sun/oracle,ibm) , but is it garanted by vm

Re: JDK 8 core review request for 6989067 BigInteger's array copiers should be converted to System.arraycopy()

2011-09-03 Thread David Holmes
On 3/09/2011 9:19 AM, joe.da...@oracle.com wrote: Modified as suggested to use Arrays.copyOf before being pushed. The performance team recommend to me this class of change be implemented so I assume (and hope) the VM properly handles small arrays in a performance sense. I was going to ask

Re: JDK 8 code review request for 6838776 Defer initialization of static fields in java.math.BigInteger

2011-09-03 Thread David Holmes
On 3/09/2011 5:11 PM, Sebastian Sickelmann wrote: Looks good to me. Nice pattern to use static initialization on first usage of UnsafeHolder instead of using lazy initialization code with double-check-ideom for synchronizing in the two accessing methods. It should works for all vm i have workes

Re: JDK 8 core review request for 6989067 BigInteger's array copiers should be converted to System.arraycopy()

2011-09-03 Thread Joe Darcy
David Holmes wrote: On 3/09/2011 9:19 AM, joe.da...@oracle.com wrote: Modified as suggested to use Arrays.copyOf before being pushed. The performance team recommend to me this class of change be implemented so I assume (and hope) the VM properly handles small arrays in a performance sense.