Changeset: 7ac7d1afd966
Author:cl
Date: 2013-11-28 08:23 -0800
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jaxws/rev/7ac7d1afd966
Added tag jdk8-b118 for changeset 76a598cf50c4
! .hgtags
Changeset: 172b8e056ff2
Author:lana
Date: 2013-12-03 10:46 -0800
URL:
Changeset: 6b37ae056340
Author:cl
Date: 2013-11-28 08:23 -0800
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jaxp/rev/6b37ae056340
Added tag jdk8-b118 for changeset e4e5069250e7
! .hgtags
Changeset: 69a930376c70
Author:lana
Date: 2013-12-03 10:46 -0800
URL:
Changeset: b55a011cf8ae
Author:cl
Date: 2013-11-28 08:24 -0800
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/nashorn/rev/b55a011cf8ae
Added tag jdk8-b118 for changeset 8d014b039b44
! .hgtags
Changeset: c3343930c73c
Author:lana
Date: 2013-12-03 10:46 -0800
URL:
Hi,
I'd like to propose to change Class.checkInitted() to check if the VM
initialization has completed by using sun.misc.VM.isBooted() instead of
System.out != null.
The current check needlessly triggers System class initialization (thus
complicating bootstrap initialization order on VMs that
Changeset: d30f49aa2d01
Author:sla
Date: 2013-12-03 17:06 +0100
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/d30f49aa2d01
6461635: [TESTBUG] BasicTests.sh test fails intermittently
Summary: Transform dummy class instead of BigInteger to avoid complication by
-Xshare. Ported
Changeset: aed9ca4d33ec
Author:joehw
Date: 2013-12-04 00:17 -0800
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jaxp/rev/aed9ca4d33ec
8027973: Error in the documentation for newFactory method of the
javax.xml.stream factories
Reviewed-by: alanb, dfuchs, lancea, rriggs
!
Hi Joe,
The changes look sensible to me. Funnily enough, when I read the next, the voice
echoing in my head sounds like Alex's
A small clarification:
+ * li The addition of the additional annotations is both source
+ * compatible and binary compatible. That is, the source containing
+ *
On 04/12/2013 08:24, Jeroen Frijters wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to propose to change Class.checkInitted() to check if the VM
initialization has completed by using sun.misc.VM.isBooted() instead of
System.out != null.
This should be changed (I can only guess that whoever added this wasn't
aware of
Changeset: 2aa455506c49
Author:psandoz
Date: 2013-12-04 10:27 +0100
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/2aa455506c49
8029164: Race condition in CompletableFuture.thenCompose with asynchronous task
Reviewed-by: dl, chegar, mduigou
!
Changeset: e984e2871bf7
Author:jfranck
Date: 2013-12-04 11:04 +0100
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/e984e2871bf7
8029117: (reflect) clarify javadoc for getMethod(...) and getMethods()
Reviewed-by: darcy
! src/share/classes/java/lang/Class.java
I have reviewed Doug's code, just need someone to quickly review the test code.
Paul.
On Dec 2, 2013, at 5:29 PM, Paul Sandoz paul.san...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi,
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psandoz/tl/JDK-8028564-concurrent-resize/webrev/
This patch is contributed by Doug Lea and fixes two
Changeset: e0b4483668a7
Author:jlaskey
Date: 2013-11-26 11:58 -0400
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/nashorn/rev/e0b4483668a7
8029173: Debugger support doesn't handle ConsString
Reviewed-by: lagergren, hannesw, sundar
Contributed-by: james.las...@oracle.com
!
On 04/12/13 10:31, Paul Sandoz wrote:
I have reviewed Doug's code, just need someone to quickly review the test code.
The tests look pretty comprehensive to me. I see no issues with them.
-Chris.
Paul.
On Dec 2, 2013, at 5:29 PM, Paul Sandoz paul.san...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi,
On 04/12/2013 10:31, Paul Sandoz wrote:
I have reviewed Doug's code, just need someone to quickly review the test code.
Paul.
Tests looks good, I guess I would use shorter names as the directory
name makes it clear that the tests are for ConcurrentHashMap but that is
a minor point.
-Alan.
A trivial one on our JDK8 list. Doug has already accepted this into the
166 CVS.
Stuart brought this up a while back, and given our short deadline to get
doc changes into jdk8. I'll just go ahead with the review now on his
behalf. I have already review this.
The @FunctionalInterface
On 04/12/2013 14:16, Chris Hegarty wrote:
A trivial one on our JDK8 list. Doug has already accepted this into
the 166 CVS.
Stuart brought this up a while back, and given our short deadline to
get doc changes into jdk8. I'll just go ahead with the review now on
his behalf. I have already
Recent jdk8 builds seem to be more ambitious on the GC front. It turns
out that we've no strong reference for the Logger being created in this
testcase and it's collected before use.
Verified that test now passes.
suggested fix :
diff -r 28ca338366ff
On 04/12/2013 15:44, Seán Coffey wrote:
Recent jdk8 builds seem to be more ambitious on the GC front. It turns
out that we've no strong reference for the Logger being created in
this testcase and it's collected before use.
Thanks Sean, I've seen this fail many times recently due to the logger
Hi Mike,
It is cleaner specification avoid mixing normative language and
informative language in the same sentence.
..may have unpredictable effects and should be avoided
The first part is specifying the unpredictable behavior and the 2nd part
is advice to a user of the API.
may is weak
Changeset: 6d583b9d99e1
Author:henryjen
Date: 2013-12-04 08:12 -0800
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/6d583b9d99e1
8029434: Spliterator of Stream returned by BufferedReader.lines() should have
NONNULL characteristic
Reviewed-by: mduigou
!
On 12/4/2013 7:51 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 04/12/2013 15:44, Seán Coffey wrote:
Recent jdk8 builds seem to be more ambitious on the GC front. It
turns out that we've no strong reference for the Logger being created
in this testcase and it's collected before use.
Thanks Sean, I've seen this
On 12/04/2013 03:59 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 04/12/2013 14:16, Chris Hegarty wrote:
A trivial one on our JDK8 list. Doug has already accepted this into
the 166 CVS.
Stuart brought this up a while back, and given our short deadline to
get doc changes into jdk8. I'll just go ahead with the
On 12/04/2013 03:06 AM, Stuart Marks wrote:
Overall looks fine.
If you're listing yourself as the reviewer, jcheck will object if
you're also the changeset author. Instead of listing Brian Goetz in
Contributed-by, make him the changeset author instead. Using MQ, do
hg qref -u briangoetz.
Changeset: c009462c1e92
Author:erikj
Date: 2013-12-04 12:45 +0100
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/rev/c009462c1e92
8027963: Create unlimited policy jars.
Reviewed-by: wetmore, ihse
! common/autoconf/spec.gmk.in
On 26 Nov 2013, at 18:08, Iris Clark wrote:
So overall it looks good to me and should be pushed to the staging forest
once you hear from others that commented previously.
I think that means Chris Hegarty, Michael McMahon, and Sergey Bylokhov.
Alan, please correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm
Changeset: 2a6611ebfb6c
Author:smarks
Date: 2013-12-04 18:02 +
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/2a6611ebfb6c
8029141: Add @FunctionalInterface annotation to Callable interface
Reviewed-by: chegar, alanb
! src/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/Callable.java
Changeset: 6a5a54193118
Author:mfang
Date: 2013-12-04 09:29 -0800
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/6a5a54193118
8027244: Need to translate new error message and usage information for jar tool
Reviewed-by: naoto, yhuang
!
Changeset: a3b804e3d5f7
Author:mchung
Date: 2013-12-04 09:26 -0800
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/a3b804e3d5f7
7067973: test/java/lang/management/MemoryMXBean/CollectionUsageThreshold.java
hanging intermittently
Reviewed-by: mchung
Contributed-by:
On 12/3/2013 9:23 PM, Joe Darcy wrote:
+ *
+ * pThere are several compatibility concerns to keep in mind if an
+ * annotation type iT/i is emnot/em repeatable in one release
+ * of a library and retrofitted to be repeatable in a subsequent
+ * release.
The term retrofitted is linguistically
I see this was pushed already. Good, quick work guys!
Yes, there are a couple other RMI test failures caused by aggressive GC of
loggers (or possibly other objects). I know the Hotspot folks have filed a
couple already. But we should keep an eye out for them.
s'marks
On 12/4/13 7:44 AM,
On 12/4/13 11:30 AM, Alex Buckley wrote:
On 12/3/2013 9:23 PM, Joe Darcy wrote:
+ * li The addition of the additional annotations is both source
+ * compatible and binary compatible. That is, the source containing
+ * the element and its annotations will still compile and the class
+ * file
Following the lead of the notices added to Optional, the java.time value
based
classes should include the same notice.
Please review:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-time-valuetype-8029551/
Thanks, Roger
On 12/04/2013 12:00 PM, roger riggs wrote:
Following the lead of the notices added to Optional, the java.time value based
classes should include the same notice.
Please review:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-time-valuetype-8029551/
Thanks, Roger
Corrected.
Thanks, Roger
On 12/4/2013 3:42 PM, Xueming Shen wrote:
On 12/04/2013 12:00 PM, roger riggs wrote:
Following the lead of the notices added to Optional, the java.time
value based
classes should include the same notice.
Please review:
Hello,
Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8029514
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8029514/webrev/
The problem causing this failure is that the method getLower() used by
Karatsuba multiplication is expected to return an unsigned value but instead
returns 'this' if the
Changeset: 4345e3e82c55
Author:mchung
Date: 2013-12-04 13:35 -0800
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/4345e3e82c55
8029552: Remove java/lang/management/MemoryMXBean/CollectionUsageThreshold.java
from ProblemList.txt
Reviewed-by: alanb
! test/ProblemList.txt
Changeset: 4a2ed1900428
Author:mchung
Date: 2013-12-04 15:39 -0800
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/langtools/rev/4a2ed1900428
8029216: (jdeps) Provide a specific option to report JDK internal APIs
Reviewed-by: alanb
! src/share/classes/com/sun/tools/jdeps/JdepsTask.java
!
Hi Brian,
I've taken a look at the change, but I don't understand why the problem
wasn't surfaced before?
-Joe
On 12/4/2013 1:34 PM, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
Hello,
Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8029514
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8029514/webrev/
The problem
On 12/04/2013 11:58 AM, Stuart Marks wrote:
On 12/4/13 11:30 AM, Alex Buckley wrote:
On 12/3/2013 9:23 PM, Joe Darcy wrote:
+ * li The addition of the additional annotations is both source
+ * compatible and binary compatible. That is, the source containing
+ * the element and its
On 12/4/2013 1:34 PM, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
Hello,
Issue:https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8029514
Webrev:http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8029514/webrev/
The problem causing this failure is that the method getLower() used by
Karatsuba multiplication is expected to return
On Dec 4, 2013, at 6:20 PM, Alan Eliasen wrote:
Hmmm... it looks like that patch is correct and necessary if
getLower() is receiving negative numbers. I'm not quite sure what
happened there. My vague recollection was that at one point the
arguments to Karatsuba multiply were conditioned
On 12/04/2013 06:50 PM, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
On Dec 4, 2013, at 6:20 PM, Alan Eliasen wrote:
Hmmm... it looks like that patch is correct and necessary if
getLower() is receiving negative numbers. I'm not quite sure what
happened there. My vague recollection was that at one point the
On Dec 4, 2013, at 6:56 PM, Joe Darcy wrote:
As a double-check, can you run the now failing regression test against the
earlier versions of java.math.* between when Karatsuba and friends went in
and the current version of the code?
If I go back to rev 7466
changeset: 7466:9b802d99cb52
On 12/04/2013 07:32 PM, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
On Dec 4, 2013, at 6:56 PM, Joe Darcy wrote:
As a double-check, can you run the now failing regression test
against the earlier versions of java.math.* between when Karatsuba
and friends went in and the current version of the code?
If I go
On 12/04/2013 08:06 PM, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
On Dec 4, 2013, at 8:02 PM, Joe Darcy wrote:
Thanks for going the experiment Brian. I'll approve the proposed
change to BigInteger as long as the regression test includes a case
which will fail when run against the uncorrected version of the
On 11/30/2013 12:05 AM, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
On 11/29/13 4:56 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 29/11/2013 10:08, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
However, removing or just moving the lock around might well
introduce new
unknown issues - so it will need to be carefully anaIyzed, and I am
not sure
it can/should
46 matches
Mail list logo
