Hi core-libs,
analysis shows that a handful of small ConcurrentHashMaps used during
bootstrap is subject to some amount of resizing. Initializing these to
slightly larger values improves startup metrics measurably on default
images without regressing performance on minimal images.
Bug:https:
On 12/08/2019 11:13, Claes Redestad wrote:
Hi core-libs,
analysis shows that a handful of small ConcurrentHashMaps used during
bootstrap is subject to some amount of resizing. Initializing these to
slightly larger values improves startup metrics measurably on default
images without regressing pe
On 8/12/19 12:13 PM, Claes Redestad wrote:
> Hi core-libs,
>
> analysis shows that a handful of small ConcurrentHashMaps used during
> bootstrap is subject to some amount of resizing. Initializing these to
> slightly larger values improves startup metrics measurably on default
> images without reg
Hi Claes,
I'd suggest adding a comment such as:
// sized to 32 to avoid resizing during bootstrap
best regards (and no need for a new review if you
decide to take in my suggestion).
-- daniel
On 12/08/2019 11:13, Claes Redestad wrote:
Hi core-libs,
analysis shows that a handful of small Con
Alan, Aleksey, Daniel,
thanks for your reviews!
On 2019-08-12 13:03, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Hi Claes,
I'd suggest adding a comment such as:
// sized to 32 to avoid resizing during bootstrap
I think this would be superfluous, so unless there is
popular demand I'll leave it as is.
Thanks!
/Cla
Looks good.
- Alexey
On 8/10/2019 6:44 AM, Andy Herrick wrote:
Please review the jpackage fix for bug [1] at [2].
This is a fix for the JDK-8200758-branch branch of the open sandbox
repository (jpackage).
This change will remove the "bin" directory on windows and revert to
putting the exec
Comments are inline.
> On 8 Aug 2019, at 18:59, Roger Riggs wrote:
>
> Hi Pavel,
>
> To your questions...
>
>
> On 8/8/19 11:07 AM, Pavel Rappo wrote:
> ...
>>> 109: "template method" doesn't describe the method well, the method is
>>> private and not overridable.
>>>update the javadoc.
On 8/11/19 9:49 PM, David Holmes wrote:
On 11/08/2019 2:50 pm, Mandy Chung wrote:
On 8/10/19 12:30 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
On 8/9/19 10:19 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
An earlier version of this patch was reviewed [1] but I
didn't get back to explore the other approach. I rebase
the patch an
Hi Mandy,
I thought the contract for @Stable was that the value would
not change after it's been assigned a non default value.
And the default for int is '0', not '-1'.
In view of that - isn't using 'final' a better alternative,
even though it's also lying?
best regards,
-- daniel
On 12/08/201
On 8/12/19 8:12 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
> On 8/11/19 9:49 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>> On 11/08/2019 2:50 pm, Mandy Chung wrote:
>>> On 8/10/19 12:30 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
I wonder if bci=-1 is meaningful, and should be returned when BCI is not
available. After this
patch, it wou
On 8/12/19 11:33 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
Alternatively, we can make bci an int (as Alekey suggests) that does not
increase the object size:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk14/8193325/webrev.02/
@Stable seems meaningless here, for the reasons Daniel points out. I believe "final
On 8/12/19 9:01 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
> import jdk.internal.access.JavaLangInvokeAccess;
> import jdk.internal.access.SharedSecrets;
> +import jdk.internal.vm.annotation.Stable;
Not needed anymore.
> + private final int bci = -1; // BCI set by VM
AFAIU, this sets up the field to be
Having a second thought, I'm keeping @Stable bci field while zero
indicates an invalid BCI that makes it obvious that this field will be
updated. VM will set StackFrameInfo::bci to value+1.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk14/8193325/webrev.03/
Mandy
Hello,
Please review the fix to the following issue:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8211990
The proposed changeset is located at:
https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~naoto/8211990/webrev.00/
The DateTimeException was thrown due to unconditional conversion beyond
the valid range of the int
+1
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 21:44, wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Please review the fix to the following issue:
>
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8211990
>
> The proposed changeset is located at:
>
> https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~naoto/8211990/webrev.00/
>
> The DateTimeException was thrown due to
Looks good Naoto.
One question I had which is not relevant to your fix, but should the tests as
we modify them include the JTReg tags such as @bug, @summary…. etc… just for
consistency….
Best
Lance
> On Aug 12, 2019, at 4:43 PM, naoto.s...@oracle.com wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Please review the f
Looks good.
On 8/10/2019 3:44 AM, Andy Herrick wrote:
Please review the jpackage fix for bug [1] at [2].
This is a fix for the JDK-8200758-branch branch of the open sandbox
repository (jpackage).
This change will remove the "bin" directory on windows and revert to
putting the executable(s)
Thank you for the review, Lance.
On 8/12/19 2:37 PM, Lance Andersen wrote:
Looks good Naoto.
One question I had which is not relevant to your fix, but should the
tests as we modify them include the JTReg tags such as @bug, @summary….
etc… just for consistency….
I put @bug tags to each of t
Hi Naoto,
> On Aug 12, 2019, at 6:01 PM, naoto.s...@oracle.com wrote:
>
> Thank you for the review, Lance.
>
> On 8/12/19 2:37 PM, Lance Andersen wrote:
>> Looks good Naoto.
>> One question I had which is not relevant to your fix, but should the tests
>> as we modify them include the JTReg tags
Hi Mandy,
On 13/08/2019 6:24 am, Mandy Chung wrote:
Having a second thought, I'm keeping @Stable bci field while zero
indicates an invalid BCI that makes it obvious that this field will be
updated. VM will set StackFrameInfo::bci to value+1.
I don't know this code but why have the VM set the
Hi Lance,
Yes, I would like the style, but AFAIK, all java.time tests are testng,
and controlled with the java/time/{test/tck}/TEST.properties file so
that each test file won't need jtreg tags (it cannot override them either).
Naoto
On 8/12/19 3:17 PM, Lance Andersen wrote:
Hi Naoto,
On Aug
Hi Naoto
> On Aug 12, 2019, at 6:34 PM, naoto.s...@oracle.com wrote:
>
> Hi Lance,
>
> Yes, I would like the style, but AFAIK, all java.time tests are testng, and
> controlled with the java/time/{test/tck}/TEST.properties file so that each
> test file won't need jtreg tags (it cannot override t
On 8/12/19 3:28 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Mandy,
On 13/08/2019 6:24 am, Mandy Chung wrote:
Having a second thought, I'm keeping @Stable bci field while zero
indicates an invalid BCI that makes it obvious that this field will
be updated. VM will set StackFrameInfo::bci to value+1.
I don'
On 13/08/2019 8:55 am, Mandy Chung wrote:
On 8/12/19 3:28 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Mandy,
On 13/08/2019 6:24 am, Mandy Chung wrote:
Having a second thought, I'm keeping @Stable bci field while zero
indicates an invalid BCI that makes it obvious that this field will
be updated. VM will set
Hi,
I received an update from Vladimir:
---
"I investigated approach with adaptive threshold for mixed insertion sort
and have the following results.
New version shows the same gain for large arrays
and has few percents of speed up for small arrays:
total gain:
s
This looks good to me, with two comments:
I don’t like the static final RETAIN_CLASS_REF for the same
reasons as Aleksey, but I can live with that.
The protocol between the JVM and the Java class is well explained
on the JVM side (javaClasses.cpp:4227). I think it would be valuable
to provide the
Please review the jpackage fix for bug [1] at [2].
This is a fix for the JDK-8200758-branch branch of the open sandbox
repository (jpackage).
- Fixed by adding --install-dir folders to RemoveFile table as per Wixs
requirements.
[1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8226534
[2] http:
looks good.
/Andy
On 8/12/2019 8:38 PM, Alexander Matveev wrote:
Please review the jpackage fix for bug [1] at [2].
This is a fix for the JDK-8200758-branch branch of the open sandbox
repository (jpackage).
- Fixed by adding --install-dir folders to RemoveFile table as per
Wixs requirement
On 8/12/19 5:13 PM, Frederic Parain wrote:
This looks good to me, with two comments:
I don’t like the static final RETAIN_CLASS_REF for the same
reasons as Aleksey, but I can live with that.
I didn't see Aleksey's comment about RETAIN_CLASS_REF (what is it?).
Now that it draws my attention.
> On 9 Aug 2019, at 1:59 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
>
> ...
> Is handling Unbind in the switch needed (as different from the default).
Sorry, I forgot this, it’s a placeholder to handle UNBIND_REQUEST further, per
ldap protocol, server will close the connection when received unbind request
fro
30 matches
Mail list logo
