Deven,
On 23/04/2012 3:54 PM, Deven You wrote:
On 04/18/2012 02:20 PM, Deven You wrote:
On 04/18/2012 01:34 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
I think this could still run into CME. System Properties is not a
synchronized map and the setter methods (System.setProperty or
Properties.put method) doesn't
Except of course that Properties is a Hashtable and synchronizes on
'this' for all public methods. So locking the properties object in the
client code will guarantee exclusive access to it.
Sorry about that.
David
-
On 23/04/2012 4:30 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Deven,
On 23/04/2012 3:54
Thanks David,
So is it ok for you to contribute this patch?
On 04/23/2012 02:36 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Except of course that Properties is a Hashtable and synchronizes on
'this' for all public methods. So locking the properties object in the
client code will guarantee exclusive access to it.
On 23/04/2012 5:43 PM, Deven You wrote:
Thanks David,
So is it ok for you to contribute this patch?
You can count me as a Reviewer, but it still needs sign-off from Mandy
as a serviceability representative.
I don't have the spare cycles to act as sponsor for this if you need
someone to
2012/4/23 Rémi Forax fo...@univ-mlv.fr:
The issue is that Hotspot also count the bytecodes related to assert
in its inlining heuristic.
If the assert is commented, the inlining tree is good.
[...]
Given that Integer.valueOf() is a method used very often and that if the
inlining fails,
the
On 04/23/2012 07:43 PM, Mario Torre wrote:
2012/4/23 Rémi Foraxfo...@univ-mlv.fr:
The issue is that Hotspot also count the bytecodes related to assert
in its inlining heuristic.
If the assert is commented, the inlining tree is good.
[...]
Given that Integer.valueOf() is a method used very
On 04/23/2012 02:36 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Except of course that Properties is a Hashtable and synchronizes on
'this' for all public methods. So locking the properties object in the
client code will guarantee exclusive access to it.
David, thanks for looking at this closer. I missed that
Deven,
Sorry for stepping latter.
I'll sponsor this fix, but I need some time to take a close look at
changes as I don't understand clearly why synchronization should help in
this case.
-Dmitry
On 2012-04-23 23:36, Mandy Chung wrote:
On 04/23/2012 02:36 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Except
Hi all,
I am absolute new on OpenJDK forum.
Intention: start a port to OpenVMS Itanium
Question: which project has to be ported first, given that OpenVMS has a JDK
1.6.0_05 but does not have JDK 1.7.0_*
Reason: It is unclear since Months, what HP's JAVA OpenVMS Roadmap will be. But
we need
Just curious - I am assuming that assertions are disabled during the
test runs, so wouldn't one expect the assert statements to be
ignored / removed?
Obviously it didn't in this case, yet I thought we are expecting
constant conditionals to be optimised, e.g. if (a == null) {...} to be
removed if
On 04/24/2012 12:32 AM, Alex Lam S.L. wrote:
Just curious - I am assuming that assertions are disabled during the
test runs, so wouldn't one expect the assert statements to be
ignored / removed?
Obviously it didn't in this case, yet I thought we are expecting
constant conditionals to be
Hi Rémi,
I think, instead tweaking the java code, Hotspot inlining heuristic should better be changed to
count the bytes of the compiled code.
Than any code would benefit from, not only Integer.valueOf().
-Ulf
Am 23.04.2012 19:35, schrieb Rémi Forax:
Hi guys,
I've found a case where assert
12 matches
Mail list logo
