Hello!
This is a simple backport from 8 to 7.
Looking for a review of this even though it only requires a testcase
change due to the use of lambda expressions.
Since this is the first of these I've encountered I thought I better
play it safe, but generally speaking, are we ok
to skip the revie
On 30/01/2014 15:36, Miroslaw Niemiec wrote:
Hi Alan,
I have corrected the test file according to your suggestions
The new webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~miroslawzn/8011944/webrev.03/
Looks good, thanks for this.
This backport reminds me that maybe it is time to consider removing the
me
On 1/30/2014 5:46 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 30/01/2014 02:34, Miroslaw Niemiec wrote:
The copyright header added to
test/java/util/Arrays/TimSortStackSize.java:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~miroslawzn/8011944/webrev.02/
- Miroslaw
Thanks, just a few minor nits to look at before you push this:
On 30/01/2014 02:34, Miroslaw Niemiec wrote:
The copyright header added to
test/java/util/Arrays/TimSortStackSize.java:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~miroslawzn/8011944/webrev.02/
- Miroslaw
Thanks, just a few minor nits to look at before you push this:
- The import at L30 is mis-aligned.
- The
On 1/24/2014 1:33 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 23/01/2014 22:55, Miroslaw Niemiec wrote:
Hello!
This is a simple backport from 8 to 7.
Looking for a review of this even though it only requires a testcase
change due to the use of lambda expressions.
Since this is the first of these I've encounter
On 23/01/2014 22:55, Miroslaw Niemiec wrote:
Hello!
This is a simple backport from 8 to 7.
Looking for a review of this even though it only requires a testcase
change due to the use of lambda expressions.
Since this is the first of these I've encountered I thought I better
play it safe, but ge
On Jan 23, 2014, at 11:55 PM, Miroslaw Niemiec
wrote:
> Hello!
>
> This is a simple backport from 8 to 7.
Looks good to me (as Florian points out the test requires a license and updates
to dates on those source files).
> Looking for a review of this even though it only requires a testcase c
On 01/23/2014 11:55 PM, Miroslaw Niemiec wrote:
Fix for 7:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~miroslawzn/801144/webrev.01/
The new test lacks a license header.
--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team
Hello!
This is a simple backport from 8 to 7.
Looking for a review of this even though it only requires a testcase
change due to the use of lambda expressions.
Since this is the first of these I've encountered I thought I better
play it safe, but generally speaking, are we ok
to skip the review
Changeset: 07585a2483fa
Author:rriggs
Date: 2013-08-26 11:46 -0400
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/07585a2483fa
8011944: Sort fails with ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException
Summary: Increase the size of pending stack and add test cases
Reviewed-by: alanb
! src/share
On 23/08/2013 16:24, roger riggs wrote:
Hi,
I reviewed the algorithm of the test case and it seems to me that it
produces the smallest number of total items to sort for a given stack
depth.
I ran it with other stack depths and confirmed that the implementation
did
not exceed the new limit.
I
Hi,
I reviewed the algorithm of the test case and it seems to me that it
produces the smallest number of total items to sort for a given stack depth.
I ran it with other stack depths and confirmed that the implementation did
not exceed the new limit.
I was unable to discover a specific explanati
On 22/08/2013 15:25, roger riggs wrote:
Please review the fix for:
JDK-8011944[1] : Sort fails with ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException
The pending run stack size is estimated based on the input size.
The worst case sequence of inputs exceeds the current allocation and
an exception occurs.
Incre
Please review the fix for:
JDK-8011944[1] : Sort fails with ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException
The pending run stack size is estimated based on the input size.
The worst case sequence of inputs exceeds the current allocation and an
exception occurs.
Increasing the allocation of the pending run s
14 matches
Mail list logo
