Hello Vladimir,
Could you also share performance test suite you used? Unit tests do not fit
well to measure performance.
You got unbelievable results after applying recent changes (proposed by Joshua
Bloch and me), so I would like to reproduce these results as well.
Thank you,
Vladimir,
If we consider case when the whole array is sorted,
we can omit setting sentinel and restoring original value:
Let me define my point more precisely. We can omit setting sentinel not only in
a particular case when the whole array is sorted.
During partitioning the whole array is
Hello Dmytro,
I got your idea, and now I'm trying to combine insertion sort
with your suggestion (don't set a sentinel), to be under
restriction that we cannot change anything outside of the
range and to sort correctly if initially part of array only
is to be sorted (not whole array), see:
[ ?
Changeset: 0bda20126372
Author:chegar
Date: 2010-05-06 17:17 +0100
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/tl/jdk/rev/0bda20126372
6946825: com.sun.net.httpserver.HttpServer; Memory Leak on Non HTTP conform
open socket
Reviewed-by: michaelm
!
This is a bug report with fix.
(Chris, please file a bug)
Summary: PriorityQueue(collection) should throw NPE if collection
contains a null
Description:
PriorityQueue spec says:
A priority queue does not permit {...@code null} elements.
but the constructor taking a collection does not enforce
Martin,
Martin Buchholz said the following on 05/07/10 08:24:
This is a bug report with fix.
(Chris, please file a bug)
Summary: PriorityQueue(collection) should throw NPE if collection
contains a null
Description:
PriorityQueue spec says:
A priority queue does not permit {...@code null}
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 15:58, David Holmes david.hol...@oracle.com wrote:
Fix:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk7/PriorityQueueConstructor/
I'm not sure this is necessarily the right fix. It seems to me that
incidental nulls will be caught in many/most cases by the sorting
Hi Martin,
Martin Buchholz said the following on 05/07/10 09:13:
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 15:58, David Holmes david.hol...@oracle.com wrote:
Fix:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk7/PriorityQueueConstructor/
I'm not sure this is necessarily the right fix. It seems to me that
David,
Of course you're right.
I didn't realize that the hole was one-element nulls.
(Why is software always 10 times harder than you'd think?)
Updated webrev, with lots more tests for corner cases.
I still need a bug filed in bugtraq.
Martin
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 16:53, David Holmes
Hi Martin,
CR 6950540 filed. (Chris might want to tidy it up :) )
Changes look okay to me.
Thanks,
David
Martin Buchholz said the following on 05/07/10 12:19:
David,
Of course you're right.
I didn't realize that the hole was one-element nulls.
(Why is software always 10 times harder than
Martin,
Do you have time to take a quick look on this one? If you agree the
proposed change (throw a more specific
ZipException instead of the general IOException when gzip specific
error occurs) I will get this one into
the CCC queue.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/4263582/webrev
11 matches
Mail list logo
