Re: RFR(XS): 8213151: [AIX] Some class library files are missing the Classpath exception

Thanks for the quick reviews! Volker On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 4:35 PM Roger Riggs wrote: > > Looks fine, Reviewed. > > Thanks, Roger > > On 10/30/2018 11:02 AM, Baesken, Matthias wrote: > > Hi Volker, looks good (not a Reviewer however) ! > > Maybe you should also adjust the Copyright year

Re: RFR: JDK-8212828 Allow POSIX_SPAWN to be used for ProcessImpl on Linux

Hi Roger, thanks! I'll remove the author tag before pushing. I ran the change through jdk-submit too, without problems, though I assume they are a subset of the tests you ran. I was not yet able to run them through our tests, due to technical problems. Will do so in the next days. Thanks,

Re: RFR 8207690: SearchPath API for classpath and similar path strings

Ping... http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2018-October/055865.html On 10/04/2018 11:09 AM, Roger Riggs wrote: Please review a revised API for parsing search and using paths. Thanks for the earlier comments and suggestions. java.util.SearchPath is an immutable sequence of

Re: RFR(XS): 8213151: [AIX] Some class library files are missing the Classpath exception

+1 On 30/10/2018 07:05, Thomas Stüfe wrote: Seems fine and trivial. Regards, Thomas On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 2:56 PM Volker Simonis wrote: Hi, can I please have a review for the following tiny change which fixes the license header on a few AIX-specific files:

Re: RFR: JDK-8212828 Allow POSIX_SPAWN to be used for ProcessImpl on Linux

Hi Thomas, The webrev looks fine. Please remove the @author tag in the Linux (2nd) test block in Basic.java. Author tags are losing favor and there's no need to repeat it. I ran the change through our tests without errors. I'd give it another 24hours before pushing in case anyone else wants

Re: RFR: 8211382 ISO2022JP and GB18030 NIO converter issues

+1, looks fine If you need a sponsor, I can. Regards, Roger On 10/30/18 1:32 PM, Ichiroh Takiguchi wrote: Hello. Additional reviewer is required. It's typo issue as Sherman explained. Thanks, Ichiroh Takiguchi IBM Japan, Ltd. On 2018-10-03 07:01, Xueming Shen wrote: +1 -Sherman btw,

RFR(M) 8212605: Pure-Java implementation of AccessController.doPrivileged

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8212605 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dlong/8212605/webrev.1 This change implements AccessController.doPrivileged in Java.  This gives a performance improvement while also being useful to Project Loom by removing the Java --> native --> Java transition. 

Re: RFR(M) 8212605: Pure-Java implementation of AccessController.doPrivileged

Hi Dean, Looking only at the hotspot changes. The removal of the DoPrivileged and related privileged_stack code seems okay. I have a few related comments: src/hotspot/share/classfile/systemDictionary.hpp You added the java_security_AccessController class after

Re: RFR(JDK12/java.xml) 8212871: Broken links give 401-Unauthorized

BTW This seems to only be for: --- old/src/jdk.xml.dom/share/classes/org/w3c/dom/xpath/XPathNamespace.java 2018-10-31 16:49:00.265127157 -0700 +++ new/src/jdk.xml.dom/share/classes/org/w3c/dom/xpath/XPathNamespace.java 2018-10-31 16:48:59.861089532 -0700 @@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ * future

Re: RFR(M) 8212605: Pure-Java implementation of AccessController.doPrivileged

Dean, src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/AccessController.java: +/** + * Internal marker for hidden implementation frames. + */ +/*non-public*/ +@Target(ElementType.METHOD) +@Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME) +@interface Hidden { +} You declare @Hidden,

Re: RFR(M) 8212605: Pure-Java implementation of AccessController.doPrivileged

Thanks David. dl On 10/31/18 5:54 PM, David Holmes wrote: Hi Dean, On 1/11/2018 10:13 AM, dean.l...@oracle.com wrote: On 10/31/18 4:06 PM, David Holmes wrote: Hi Dean, Looking only at the hotspot changes. The removal of the DoPrivileged and related privileged_stack code seems okay. I have

RFR(JDK12/java.xml) 8212871: Broken links give 401-Unauthorized

Hi, Please review a fix for the broken links, replacing: http://www.w3.org/2002/08/WD-DOM-Level-3-XPath-20020820 with: https://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-3-XPath/ The former on which the jdk.xml.dom package was based is no longer publicly available. The later is current. The only difference

Re: RFR(M) 8212605: Pure-Java implementation of AccessController.doPrivileged

Hi Dean, On 1/11/2018 10:13 AM, dean.l...@oracle.com wrote: On 10/31/18 4:06 PM, David Holmes wrote: Hi Dean, Looking only at the hotspot changes. The removal of the DoPrivileged and related privileged_stack code seems okay. I have a few related comments:

Re: RFR(M) 8212605: Pure-Java implementation of AccessController.doPrivileged

I think it's a good idea, but I believe it would require a CSR request.  Do you mind if I file a separate issue for jdk.internal.vm.annotation.Hidden? dl On 10/31/18 6:11 PM, Vladimir Ivanov wrote: Dean, src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/AccessController.java: +    /** + *

Re: RFR(JDK12/java.xml) 8212871: Broken links give 401-Unauthorized

Hi Joe, I see the update as https://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-3-XPath/ and https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/NOTE-DOM-Level-3-XPath-20040226/ Was that intentional? > On Oct 31, 2018, at 8:02 PM, Joe Wang wrote: > > Hi, > > Please

Re: RFR(M) 8212605: Pure-Java implementation of AccessController.doPrivileged

On 10/31/18 4:06 PM, David Holmes wrote: Hi Dean, Looking only at the hotspot changes. The removal of the DoPrivileged and related privileged_stack code seems okay. I have a few related comments: src/hotspot/share/classfile/systemDictionary.hpp You added the java_security_AccessController

Re: RFR(M) 8212605: Pure-Java implementation of AccessController.doPrivileged

On 10/31/18 5:13 PM, dean.l...@oracle.com wrote: On 10/31/18 4:06 PM, David Holmes wrote: Hi Dean, Looking only at the hotspot changes. The removal of the DoPrivileged and related privileged_stack code seems okay. I have a few related comments:

Re: RFR(M) 8212605: Pure-Java implementation of AccessController.doPrivileged

Thanks Ioi. dl On 10/31/18 6:01 PM, Ioi Lam wrote: On 10/31/18 5:13 PM, dean.l...@oracle.com wrote: On 10/31/18 4:06 PM, David Holmes wrote: Hi Dean, Looking only at the hotspot changes. The removal of the DoPrivileged and related privileged_stack code seems okay. I have a few related

Re: RFR(M) 8212605: Pure-Java implementation of AccessController.doPrivileged

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dlong/8212605/webrev.1/src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/AccessController.java.udiff.html In checkContext should the security manager be null checked first instead of last to optimize for the typical case? (If the side effects in that expression are desired

Re: RFR(M) 8212605: Pure-Java implementation of AccessController.doPrivileged

Hi Bernd, On 10/31/18 9:39 PM, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dlong/8212605/webrev.1/src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/AccessController.java.udiff.html In checkContext should the security manager be null checked first instead of last to optimize for the typical

Re: RFR(JDK12/java.xml) 8212871: Broken links give 401-Unauthorized

Thanks Lance! I somehow copied the wrong link. Although they point to the same document, the shorter version (without the prefix and date) is better. Fixed now in the webrev: webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk12/8212871/webrev/ Thanks, Joe On 10/31/18, 5:14 PM, Lance Andersen