On 08/30/2012 04:14 PM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
Am 30.08.2012 01:20, schrieb Stuart Marks:
On 8/29/12 4:36 AM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
@SuppressWarnings(fallthrough) is put to suppress warnings
generated by
another switch/case statements
Can't you move it from method scope to there?
while (i
On 8/30/2012 2:20 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 30/08/2012 19:38, Joe Wang wrote:
Hi Paul, Alan,
I've read your latest comments. Before getting back to you on those
items, I felt it's important we get the classloader handling
correctly. If it's as what I suspected (as I described in the last
On Aug 30, 2012, at 11:20 PM, Alan Bateman alan.bate...@oracle.com wrote:
On 30/08/2012 19:38, Joe Wang wrote:
Hi Paul, Alan,
I've read your latest comments. Before getting back to you on those items,
I felt it's important we get the classloader handling correctly. If it's as
what I
Changeset: bdfcc13ddeb4
Author:jfranck
Date: 2012-08-31 10:52 +0200
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/bdfcc13ddeb4
7151010: Add compiler support for repeating annotations
Reviewed-by: darcy, jjg
+ src/share/classes/java/lang/annotation/ContainerFor.java
Changeset: 873ddd9f4900
Author:jfranck
Date: 2012-08-31 10:37 +0100
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/langtools/rev/873ddd9f4900
7151010: Add compiler support for repeating annotations
Reviewed-by: jjg, mcimadamore
+
Stuart, much thanks for your detailed explanation. The as is situation has not been in question from
my side, but anyway it seems, that it had catalysed a new solution, despite that the additional
break; could affect JIT optimization of the enclosing loop. So there should be an explaining
I can't say I know this area too well, but I think it is worth pushing
the changes you have. Hopefully that will be an end to this intermittent
failure.
-Chris
On 30/08/12 12:48, Seán Coffey wrote:
bug report should be live shortly :
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7195063
Changeset: da1436b21bc2
Author:coffeys
Date: 2012-08-31 12:25 +0100
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/da1436b21bc2
7195063: [TEST] jtreg flags com/sun/corba/cachedSocket/7056731.sh with Error
failure.
Reviewed-by: chegar
! test/com/sun/corba/cachedSocket/7056731.sh
Changeset: 33f8ca2b4ba3
Author:alanb
Date: 2012-08-31 12:25 +0100
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/33f8ca2b4ba3
7033824: TEST_BUG: java/nio/file/Files/CopyAndMove.java fails intermittently
Reviewed-by: chegar
! test/java/nio/file/Files/CopyAndMove.java
On 31/08/2012 08:59, Joe Wang wrote:
Yes, it works just fine under normal conditions.
Note the old process: read the service file using TCCL (if null,
system cl), if nothing found, then BCL
Somehow I was under the impression ServiceLoader does just that so
that we could delegate to it.
On 8/31/2012 4:20 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 31/08/2012 08:59, Joe Wang wrote:
Yes, it works just fine under normal conditions.
Note the old process: read the service file using TCCL (if null,
system cl), if nothing found, then BCL
Somehow I was under the impression ServiceLoader does
On 08/30/2012 06:45 PM, Stuart Marks wrote:
On 8/30/12 7:14 AM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
Am 30.08.2012 01:20, schrieb Stuart Marks:
On 8/29/12 4:36 AM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
@SuppressWarnings(fallthrough) is put to suppress warnings
generated by
another switch/case statements
Can't you move it from
The changes look good to me.
I am starting to come into agreement with Remi though that unless a type
specific array can be created for situations like the E[] elements array in
ArrayDeque then it should be declared as Object[] array since that's what is
actually created.
Mike
On Aug 31
On 8/31/12 3:19 AM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
Stuart, much thanks for your detailed explanation. The as is situation has not
been in question from my side, but anyway it seems, that it had catalysed a new
solution, despite that the additional break; could affect JIT optimization of
the enclosing loop. So
14 matches
Mail list logo
