hg: jdk8/tl/jdk: 6429204: (se) Concurrent Selector.register and SelectionKey.interestOps can ignore interestOps

Changeset: bcde0486261e Author:dingxmin Date: 2013-02-18 08:14 + URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/bcde0486261e 6429204: (se) Concurrent Selector.register and SelectionKey.interestOps can ignore interestOps Reviewed-by: alanb ! src/windows/classes/sun/nio/ch/Wind

Re: Define JNIEXPORT as visibility default with GCC?

On 02/17/2013 11:55 PM, David Holmes wrote: On 16/02/2013 2:46 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: On 02/15/2013 05:41 PM, Jeremy Manson wrote: Can we just blacklist 4.1.2 explicitly? Folks, per README-build.html, the minimum GCC version is 4.2 on MacOS X and 4.3 everywhere else. Do we really have to

RFR 8008378: FJP.commonPool creation within PrivilegedAction, and support parallelism 0 (JEP 155)

As usual, changes from Doug, with some additional tests from me. 1. Access and parse properties, as well as construct common pool in a PrivilegedAction, explicitly ignoring any unparseable settings. This way any racy static creation by unprivileged clients rather than usual channels won't fail

Re: Request for review: 8007454 Wrong parameters in Win32 native code.

On 04.02.2013 18:25, Alan Bateman wrote: On 04/02/2013 12:28, Alexey Utkin wrote: Hi, Please review the fix. Bug description: http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=8007454 https://jbs.oracle.com/bugs/browse/JDK-8007454 The suggested fix: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~uta/openjdk-webrevs

Re: Request for review: 8007454 Wrong parameters in Win32 native code.

On 18/02/2013 15:16, Alexey Utkin wrote: : Hmm... That was my mistake. HANDLE_FLAG_PROTECT_FROM_CLOSE bit has to be removed from mask. I mixed the variable names and did not understand clearly the handles life circle. My tests with redirected, direct and terminated input/output modes prove th

Re: RFR JDK-8007609

On 02/11/2013 08:33 PM, David Holmes wrote: John, I think the functional fix is okay but you have obscured it in so much "cleanup" that it is hard to say with 100% certainty. Please leave extensive cleanups to separate bugs - in this case I'm not seeing improvements in readability in a number

Re: RFR JDK-8007609

On 18/02/2013 16:13, John Zavgren wrote: : Greetings: I just posted a new webrev image: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jzavgren/8007609/webrev.05/ The change is now focused on fixing the memory allocation issue... all the formatting ch

Re: Review request for JDK-8008312: Re-enable MethodParameter tests in JDK

Any other comments on this one, or is it good to go? On 02/15/13 16:48, Joe Darcy wrote: > Hi Eric, > > I'll approve this change as-is, but I'd prefer if the test were written > in the style of using annotations to record the expected value. > > Cheers, > > -Joe > > On 2/15/2013 12:23 PM, Eric

Re: RFR JDK-8007609

On 18/02/2013 17:19, Alan Bateman wrote: On 18/02/2013 16:13, John Zavgren wrote: : Greetings: I just posted a new webrev image: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jzavgren/8007609/webrev.05/ The change is now focused on fixing the memory al

hg: jdk8/tl/langtools: 8008339: Test TargetAnnoCombo.java is broken

Changeset: 87884cd0fea3 Author:jjg Date: 2013-02-18 14:29 -0800 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/langtools/rev/87884cd0fea3 8008339: Test TargetAnnoCombo.java is broken Reviewed-by: jjh ! test/tools/javac/annotations/repeatingAnnotations/combo/TargetAnnoCombo.java

JEP 161 SE Compact Profiles has pushed to jdk8/build forest

The implementation support for the Reference Implementation of the SE Compact Profiles described by: http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/161 has now been pushed to the jdk8/build forest ready for integration with jdk8/jdk8 in time for b78. This reference implementation is for the Linux platform onl

FYC : JDK-7197183 : Improve copying behaviour of String.subSequence()

Hello all; JDK 7u6 included a significant change to java.lang.String. The change was internal to the String implementation and didn't result in any API changes but it does have a significant impact on the performance of some uses cases. (See http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/

Re: RFR (M) : JDK-8004561 : Addition Functional Interfaces for Lambda Libraries

Hi Mike, In BinaryOperator.java this sentence doesn't read correctly: + * An operation upon two operands yielding a result. This is a specialization of + * {@code BiFunction} for the operands and the result are all being of the same + * type. suggestions: {@code BiFunction} for the case whe

JDK 8 request for review: two javadoc warning fixes, on in DateTimeFormatterBuilder, another in TimeZone

Hello, Please review these two simple fixes for javadoc warnings I noticed during a build (I'll file a bug after getting a review): diff -r bcde0486261e src/share/classes/java/time/format/DateTimeFormatterBuilder.java --- a/src/share/classes/java/time/format/DateTimeFormatterBuilder.java Mon

Re: JDK 8 request for review: two javadoc warning fixes, on in DateTimeFormatterBuilder, another in TimeZone

Both look fine to me. No need for a webrev. Mike On Feb 18 2013, at 22:58 , Joe Darcy wrote: > Hello, > > Please review these two simple fixes for javadoc warnings I noticed during a > build (I'll file a bug after getting a review): > > diff -r bcde0486261e > src/share/classes/java/time/for

Re: JDK 8 request for review: two javadoc warning fixes, on in DateTimeFormatterBuilder, another in TimeZone

Looks good to me. Masayoshi On 2/19/2013 3:58 PM, Joe Darcy wrote: Hello, Please review these two simple fixes for javadoc warnings I noticed during a build (I'll file a bug after getting a review): diff -r bcde0486261e src/share/classes/java/time/format/DateTimeFormatterBuilder.java --- a

Re: RFR JDK-8007609

Looks fine to me. Thanks, David On 19/02/2013 2:13 AM, John Zavgren wrote: On 02/11/2013 08:33 PM, David Holmes wrote: John, I think the functional fix is okay but you have obscured it in so much "cleanup" that it is hard to say with 100% certainty. Please leave extensive cleanups to separate