Thanks for the reviews, fix has been pushed.
cheers
/Joel
On 2013-10-10, Joe Darcy wrote:
Looks fine; thanks,
-Joe
On 10/10/2013 5:56 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
On Oct 10, 2013, at 2:46 PM, Joel Borggren-Franck joel.fra...@oracle.com
wrote:
Hi,
Joe, Paul, agreed the test could be
On Oct 9, 2013, at 8:33 PM, Joel Borggren-Franck joel.fra...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi
Please review this spec update and test for getting array classes and
instances of more dimensions than the class file can express or the VM
can handle.
Array.newInstance have a test for arrays of more
Hi,
Joe, Paul, agreed the test could be better. Improved it (without using
streams) and also added a bug id tag to the old Arrays.newInstance test.
Thanks for the comments.
Webrev here: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jfranck/7044282/webrev.01/
cheres
/Joel
On 2013-10-09, Joel Borggren-Franck
On Oct 10, 2013, at 2:46 PM, Joel Borggren-Franck joel.fra...@oracle.com
wrote:
Hi,
Joe, Paul, agreed the test could be better. Improved it (without using
streams) and also added a bug id tag to the old Arrays.newInstance test.
Thanks for the comments.
Webrev here:
Looks fine; thanks,
-Joe
On 10/10/2013 5:56 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
On Oct 10, 2013, at 2:46 PM, Joel Borggren-Franck joel.fra...@oracle.com
wrote:
Hi,
Joe, Paul, agreed the test could be better. Improved it (without using
streams) and also added a bug id tag to the old Arrays.newInstance
Hi Joel,
The code changes look fine, but I'd like to see some refactoring to the
tests. In particular, please put the logic in
81 try {
82 Class? c256 = Class.forName(name256);
83 error++;
84 System.err.println(ERROR: could create + c256);
