Hi Roger,
I keep staring at the code in UNIXProcess.java and am having trouble
imagining how waitFor could possibly return early - that loop can only
terminate when elapsed time as measured by System.nanoTime exceeds
timeoutAsNanos. It's true that we might have truncation when
converting to milli
Another amusing "Turkish I bug"! Looks good to me!
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Seán Coffey wrote:
> This issue was addressed in JDK8u and later via JDK-8000975. I'm planning on
> fixing this in JDK 7u by itself.
>
> webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coffeys/webrev.8047340.7u/webrev/
> bu
Hi Martin,
The artifact is by-product of using System.nanoTime to measure the duration
in UNIXProcess and the conversion to milliseconds to call Object.wait():
The low order bits of nanoseconds are truncated in the conversion.
long timeoutAsNanos = unit.toNanos(timeout);
long st
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Peter Levart wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> I dont know if you saw https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8064517 (a
> followup to your fix for final fields). It would be best to merge those
> fixes, what do you think?
I've deliberately ignored those changes for now, s
Hi Aleksey,
I've implemented your suggestions and regenerated the webrev.
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 12:03 AM, Aleksey Shipilev
wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> On 11/14/2014 03:03 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>> I'd like you to do a code review.
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk9/core-
Companion change to getFields has been submitted. I plan on
submitting this one soon if I don't hear any objections.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> I moved the change to getFields to another changeset, redid some
> wording as suggested, harmonized getInterfaces and
> g
Committed.
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
Please shepherd through CCC.
>>
>> Kick started.
>>
>
> CCC has been approved,
> Paul.
>
This sort of change may be a necessary concession to reality, but
before we go there ... as I said in a previous review, this test may
demonstrate a real bug in the jdk implementation. Is this
system-dependent? Is it easy to reproduce? Can we fix the JDK?
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:48 AM, roger
Please review this test change to make the wait time in ProcessBuilder/Basic
a bit more lenient.
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-basic-notenough-8064932/
Issue:
8064932: java/lang/ProcessBuilder/Basic.java: waitFor didn't take
long enough
Thanks, Roger
Committed as http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/rev/3ff567ffe52a.
On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 12:59 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 07/11/2014 20:52, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>>
>> :
>> I don't much care either way, so the spec change to
>> Attributes(Attributes) is reverted, as you wish. Webrev refr
Hi Martin,
I dont know if you saw https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8064517 (a
followup to your fix for final fields). It would be best to merge those
fixes, what do you think?
Otherwise I think that making all lazily initialized fields volatile is not
necessary. Since you have made the Ty
On Nov 10, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>>> Please shepherd through CCC.
>
> Kick started.
>
CCC has been approved,
Paul.
This issue was addressed in JDK8u and later via JDK-8000975. I'm
planning on fixing this in JDK 7u by itself.
webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coffeys/webrev.8047340.7u/webrev/
bug report : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8047340
regards,
Sean.
For reasons I am not going into, I am implementing my own
AnnotationInvocationHandler and I want it to be compatible to the OpenJDK's
annotation invocation handler with respect to the hash code and equals
functionality, thus I just looked at the source in more detail. During
implementing the handle
On 2014-11-13, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> Hi Joel, Joe, Paul,
>
> I'd like you to do a code review.
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk9/core-reflection-volatile/
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8064846
Looks good. I think Aleksey's version removing 'sis' is a bit nea
Hi Martin,
On 11/14/2014 03:03 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> I'd like you to do a code review.
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk9/core-reflection-volatile/
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8064846
Looks good and sane, thanks for taking care of it.
Not a big fan of
16 matches
Mail list logo
