Hi Louis,
After the two issues for which I've posted review requests (6480539 -
stripTrailingZeros(), 4396272 - Parsing doubles fails to follow IEEE) are
resolved, issue 7131192 is currently very near the head of my queue. Given that
I still have a ways to go to get up to speed on this entire t
Thanks, sounds like you have this potential problem under control.
Hi Martin,
>
> FWIW, with my ccc hat on, I've previously (internally) asked the JCK team
> to run such reports. IIRC, the methods on AnnotatedElement where the only
> potentially problematic ones made so far. (We'll be added method
On 2/15/2013 3:49 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 6:10 AM, David Holmes wrote:
On 15/02/2013 11:53 PM, Kasper Nielsen wrote:
Hi,
I know AnnotatedElement is not a common class to implement outside of the
JDK. But the interface introduces some new methods that will break
exi
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 6:10 AM, David Holmes wrote:
> On 15/02/2013 11:53 PM, Kasper Nielsen wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I know AnnotatedElement is not a common class to implement outside of the
>> JDK. But the interface introduces some new methods that will break
>> existing
>> code.
>>
>
> I must adm
Hi Eric,
I'll approve this change as-is, but I'd prefer if the test were written
in the style of using annotations to record the expected value.
Cheers,
-Joe
On 2/15/2013 12:23 PM, Eric McCorkle wrote:
Hi,
Please review this simple patch, which re-enables the JDK end-to-end
tests for param
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Brian Burkhalter <
[email protected]> wrote:
> The patch below is as submitted to OpenJDK bugzilla but with enhanced
> comments.
Please provide a bug URL.
Hi,
Please review this simple patch, which re-enables the JDK end-to-end
tests for parameter reflection.
It also fixes a small error in toString
The webrev is here
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~emc/8008312/
Thanks,
Eric
Hello All;
This patch introduces a number of new functional interfaces for use by the
lambda libraries. Also included are some name changes following JSR-225 EG
review. The new interfaces are:
BiConsumer
BiFunction
BiPredicate
BooleanSupplier
DoublePredicate
IntPredicate
LongPredicate
ObjDouble
Changeset: 9fb4f223a90d
Author:jjg
Date: 2013-02-15 11:26 -0800
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/langtools/rev/9fb4f223a90d
8008313: 8007052 breaks test/tools/javap/MethodParameters.java
Reviewed-by: darcy
! test/tools/javap/MethodParameters.java
Changeset: da2f7dd53915
Author:mcimadamore
Date: 2013-02-15 18:13 +
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/langtools/rev/da2f7dd53915
8008309: TargetType60 fails because of bad golden file
Summary: bad golden file
Reviewed-by: jjg
! test/tools/javac/lambda/TargetType60.out
On 02/15/2013 05:41 PM, Jeremy Manson wrote:
Can we just blacklist 4.1.2 explicitly?
Folks, per README-build.html, the minimum GCC version is 4.2 on MacOS X
and 4.3 everywhere else. Do we really have to bother with 4.1.2 at this
point?
--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team
Changeset: 0baaae675b19
Author:mcimadamore
Date: 2013-02-15 16:28 +
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/langtools/rev/0baaae675b19
8006749: compiler does not allow Object protected methods to be used in lambda
Summary: Check.checkFunctionalInterface should take into account
Can we just blacklist 4.1.2 explicitly?
Jeremy
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:20 AM, David Holmes wrote:
> On 15/02/2013 5:26 PM, Jeremy Manson wrote:
>
>> a) I don't know what's going on behind the scenes, but if this sounds
>> like a good idea to folks, can we open a bug and get the process
>> oth
Changeset: 040f02711b73
Author:jjg
Date: 2013-02-15 08:28 -0800
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/langtools/rev/040f02711b73
8007052: javap should include the descriptor for a method in verbose mode
Reviewed-by: mcimadamore
! src/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javap/ClassWriter.
>> a) I don't know what's going on behind the scenes, but if this sounds
>> like a good idea to folks, can we open a bug and get the process
>> otherwise rolling?
>>
>> b) Martin, where did the 4.2 restriction come from? Both Apple's site
>> and the gcc wiki say that visibility support arrived i
> a) I don't know what's going on behind the scenes, but if this sounds like a
> good idea to folks, can we open a bug and get the process otherwise rolling?
>
> b) Martin, where did the 4.2 restriction come from? Both Apple's site and
> the gcc wiki say that visibility support arrived in 4.0:
On 2/15/2013 1:53 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Mandy,
On 15/02/2013 9:31 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
Remove com.sun.servicetag that we no longer support. This includes
updates the makefiles and so include build-infra to review this
change.
This will require a tweak to profile-rtjar-includes.txt onc
On 2/15/2013 1:58 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 15/02/2013 09:19, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 02/15/2013 12:31 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
Remove com.sun.servicetag that we no longer support. This includes
updates the makefiles and so include build-infra to review this
change.
Looks like
langtools/src
On 15/02/2013 13:53, Kasper Nielsen wrote:
Hi,
I know AnnotatedElement is not a common class to implement outside of the
JDK. But the interface introduces some new methods that will break existing
code.
Yes, this needs to be considered to avoid the source compatibility
issue. Here's the bug tr
On 15/02/2013 11:53 PM, Kasper Nielsen wrote:
Hi,
I know AnnotatedElement is not a common class to implement outside of the
JDK. But the interface introduces some new methods that will break existing
code.
I must admit I am surprised as I thought that any new methods on
interfaces would have
by introduces, I mean the additional methods going into Java8.
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Kasper Nielsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I know AnnotatedElement is not a common class to implement outside of the
> JDK. But the interface introduces some new methods that will break existing
> code.
>
> For
Hi,
I know AnnotatedElement is not a common class to implement outside of the
JDK. But the interface introduces some new methods that will break existing
code.
For example, Guava, which has the Parameter class
(
https://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/source/browse/guava/src/com/google/common/r
Changeset: 048637b40787
Author:chegar
Date: 2013-02-15 11:06 +
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/048637b40787
8008223: java/net/BindException/Test.java fails rarely
Reviewed-by: khazra, alanb
! test/java/net/BindException/Test.java
On 15/02/2013 5:26 PM, Jeremy Manson wrote:
a) I don't know what's going on behind the scenes, but if this sounds
like a good idea to folks, can we open a bug and get the process
otherwise rolling?
b) Martin, where did the 4.2 restriction come from? Both Apple's site
and the gcc wiki say that v
On 15/02/2013 09:58, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 15/02/2013 09:19, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 02/15/2013 12:31 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
Remove com.sun.servicetag that we no longer support. This includes
updates the makefiles and so include build-infra to review this
change.
Looks like
langtools/src/sh
Looks fine to me Mandy.
On 15/02/2013 09:53, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Mandy,
On 15/02/2013 9:31 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
Remove com.sun.servicetag that we no longer support. This includes
updates the makefiles and so include build-infra to review this
change.
This will require a tweak to profile
On 15/02/2013 09:19, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 02/15/2013 12:31 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
Remove com.sun.servicetag that we no longer support. This includes
updates the makefiles and so include build-infra to review this
change.
Looks like
langtools/src/share/classes/com/sun/tools/jdeps/resource
Hi Mandy,
On 15/02/2013 9:31 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
Remove com.sun.servicetag that we no longer support. This includes
updates the makefiles and so include build-infra to review this
change.
This will require a tweak to profile-rtjar-includes.txt once it gets
pushed next week. It won't cause
On 14/02/2013 18:34, Mark Sheppard wrote:
Hi
Please oblige and review the webrev at
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/8002390/webrev/
which addresses the issue raised in JDK-8002390
Description: While working with the new ZipFileSystem to modify the
contents of a zip file, encountered so
On 02/15/2013 12:31 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
Remove com.sun.servicetag that we no longer support. This includes
updates the makefiles and so include build-infra to review this
change.
Looks like
langtools/src/share/classes/com/sun/tools/jdeps/resources/jdk.properties
needs to be updated as wel
Looks good to me.
/Erik
On 2013-02-15 00:31, Mandy Chung wrote:
Remove com.sun.servicetag that we no longer support. This includes
updates the makefiles and so include build-infra to review this
change.
It's solely JDK implementation-specific that was added to
support JDK product registration
Thanks for continuing to look at this with Brian
I also had this response on twitter - "my most hated Java bug, top 1"
https://twitter.com/temerev/status/300204751931453440
Stephen
On 15 February 2013 05:54, Joe Darcy wrote:
> On 02/08/2013 02:37 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>>
>> We've establ
On 14/02/2013 23:31, Mandy Chung wrote:
Remove com.sun.servicetag that we no longer support. This includes
updates the makefiles and so include build-infra to review this
change.
It's solely JDK implementation-specific that was added to
support JDK product registration and service tag as legacy
33 matches
Mail list logo
