Thank you, Calvin
On 11/28/17 10:15 PM, Calvin Cheung wrote:
Hi Vladimir,
Fix looks good to me.
Could you break up lines #3386 (104 chars) and #3391 (146 chars)?
I will do that.
Vladimir
No need to send another webrev for the above change.
thanks,
Calvin
On 11/28/17, 3:51 PM, Vladimir K
Thank you, David
On 11/28/17 8:57 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Vladimir,
On 29/11/2017 9:51 AM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kvn/8191788/webrev.00/
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8191788
This is redo of JDK-8190975 [1] fix which added jdk.internal.vm.compiler to
Hi Vladimir,
Fix looks good to me.
Could you break up lines #3386 (104 chars) and #3391 (146 chars)?
No need to send another webrev for the above change.
thanks,
Calvin
On 11/28/17, 3:51 PM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kvn/8191788/webrev.00/
https://bugs.openjdk.java.ne
On 11/22/17 8:45 AM, Remi Forax wrote:
I think i prefer toImmutableList() than toUnmodifiableList() because the List
is truly immutable and not an unmodifiable proxy in front of a mutable List
(like Collections.unmodifiableList() does).
Immutability is like wine.
If you put a spoonful of wine
Hi Vladimir,
On 29/11/2017 9:51 AM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kvn/8191788/webrev.00/
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8191788
This is redo of JDK-8190975 [1] fix which added jdk.internal.vm.compiler
to tests which have --limit-modules option. Unfortunately test
On 11/17/17 9:43 PM, John Rose wrote:
Late to the party, but these lines rub me the wrong way:
@return the new {@code List}
@return the new {@code Set}
@return the new {@code Map}
The word "new" is a loaded term, which usually means
(or can be easily mistaken to mean) that a new object
identity
+1
Validator
--
365 public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException {
366 System.out.println("validating: " +
367 new Validator(new Main(System.out, System.err, "validator"),
368 new ZipFile(args[0]))
369 .validate())
Updates look good :-)
> On Nov 28, 2017, at 6:27 PM, Naoto Sato wrote:
>
> I've got some internal comments (two editorial fixes and java time test
> location move) and reflected them to the existing fix. Updated webrevs are
> located at:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~naoto/8176841.8189134.81
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kvn/8191788/webrev.00/
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8191788
This is redo of JDK-8190975 [1] fix which added jdk.internal.vm.compiler to tests which have
--limit-modules option. Unfortunately tests start failing on SPARC where Graal
(jdk.internal.vm.compil
I've got some internal comments (two editorial fixes and java time test
location move) and reflected them to the existing fix. Updated webrevs
are located at:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~naoto/8176841.8189134.8190918.8191349/webrev.07/
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~naoto/8176841.8189134.8190918.8
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>
> 1296 public void testCancelCancelRace() throws
> InterruptedException {
>
> Suggest “DISABLED_” prefix rather than “?
>
done.
+1
David
On 29/11/2017 4:14 AM, Doug Lea wrote:
On 11/28/2017 01:11 PM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi,
So this thread died out a while ago with some alternatives discussed and
no clear short term solution.
I'd be happy if someone closer to the ThreadPoolExecutor would be able
to take another look at
Thanks for reviewing!
For the last modified part, we can discuss updating the header script
offline. Many of the classes have already used this format, I hope
you're okay with me checking in this changeset.
Thanks,
Joe
On 11/28/2017 10:19 AM, joe darcy wrote:
Hi Joe,
The code changes look
+1
> On Nov 22, 2017, at 2:04 PM, Naoto Sato wrote:
>
> I revised the proposed changes, including java.time changes suggested by
> Stephen (CSR is still in progress):
>
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8191349
>
> The entire webrev is located at:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~naot
Hi Joe,
The code changes look fine, but the copyright blocks should *not* be
updated to include a "@LastModified: Nov 2017" comment.
Cheers,
-Joe
On 11/28/2017 10:11 AM, Joe Wang wrote:
Hi,
Please review a fix for a few more deprecation warnings. Compiling
with -Xlint:all showed that the
On 11/28/2017 01:11 PM, Roger Riggs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So this thread died out a while ago with some alternatives discussed and
> no clear short term solution.
> I'd be happy if someone closer to the ThreadPoolExecutor would be able
> to take another look at the issues.
> For the time being, it is l
On 11/28/2017 12:50 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>
>> 8187947: A race condition in SubmissionPublisher
>
> Need some more time to look at this; it is pleasing to see use of
> VH.getAndBitwiseOr :-)
>
>
Yes; not only is it the technique that allows covering this
borderline-misuse case without slowi
Hi,
Please review a fix for a few more deprecation warnings. Compiling with
-Xlint:all showed that these were the last few warnings. We can then
enable -Xlint:all for the java.xml module.
JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8191938
webrevs: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk10/81
Hi,
So this thread died out a while ago with some alternatives discussed and
no clear short term solution.
I'd be happy if someone closer to the ThreadPoolExecutor would be able
to take another look at the issues.
For the time being, it is lower down on my priorities.
Thanks, Roger
[1] 81903
> On 27 Nov 2017, at 20:19, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk10/jsr166-integration/overview.html
>
> Thanks to Dávid Karnok and Pavel Rappo for help with SubmissionPublisher.
>
> 8191937: Lost interrupt in AbstractQueuedSynchronizer when tryAcquire
Build change looks good.
/Erik
On 2017-11-27 17:50, mandy chung wrote:
This is a follow-up on JDK-8189611 that defines a new public API to
return a stream of versioned entries and to return the real name of a
JAR entry. JDK-8189611 leaves jdeps untouched because jdeps is
compiled with the bo
> On Nov 27, 2017, at 11:56 PM, Lindenmaier, Goetz
> wrote:
>
> Hi Shura,
>
> thanks for your advice! So we'll run all of them. The number of additional
> tests is small enough to handle in case they fail.
>
> Do you mind if I put this advice into a comment in the bug?
I would appreciate
Initial version of the patch made worse C1 code because of additionally
introduced locals, this may be important for client (arm32). I fixed
this by just coupling xors with brackets. Also I made measurements with
Graal and AOT. Note, in case of tiered with AOT compiled java.base the
intrinsic i
On 28/11/2017 01:50, mandy chung wrote:
This is a follow-up on JDK-8189611 that defines a new public API to
return a stream of versioned entries and to return the real name of a
JAR entry. JDK-8189611 leaves jdeps untouched because jdeps is
compiled with the boot JDK.
This patch includes:
(1
Hi,
I uploaded a new webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~goetz/wr17/8189102-helpMessage/webrev.04/
This includes the changes
- to jshell requested by Robert
- to the test as requested by Kumar.
See also incremental patch and the test output including all the
help messages referenced in the
Hi Kumar,
Thanks for looking at my change!
> I looked at some of the components I maintain, and they look good.
May I ask which these are? So I can account whether all parts have been
reviewed?
> 1. The local variables/fields don't comply with the coding conventions,
> we have been
> fo
26 matches
Mail list logo
