Hello Mandy,
The logic looks fine. Just some style issues. I would like indentation
for the conditionals to be 2 spaces as is currently the standard in the
makefiles. I would also like to have POLICY_SRC_LIST to be declared
empty with := instead of just =. We only use = assignment when
This is a ping for any Reviewer and also a question for Vladimir.
Hello Vladimir,
What do you think about the classloader issue in the resolving of
classes in MemberName.getMethodType() described below?
Regards, Peter
On 04/23/2014 04:21 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
Hi Peter,
IMHO such security
On Apr 25, 2014, at 12:04 PM, Peter Levart peter.lev...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a ping for any Reviewer and also a question for Vladimir.
Hello Vladimir,
What do you think about the classloader issue in the resolving of classes in
MemberName.getMethodType() described below?
I looked
On Apr 23, 2014, at 11:06 AM, Peter Levart peter.lev...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I propose a patch for:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8040892
+1, nice use of putIfAbsent. Just double checking, did you run the stream unit
tests?
I think key step was to separate map merge and
Hi,
I think it is sufficient that the test enables the security manager,
adding a java.util as the restricted
restricted package is not necessary.
Roger
On 4/25/2014 6:44 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
On Apr 25, 2014, at 12:04 PM, Peter Levart peter.lev...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a ping for any
On 25/04/14 13:12, Paul Sandoz wrote:
On Apr 23, 2014, at 11:06 AM, Peter Levart peter.lev...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I propose a patch for:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8040892
+1, nice use of putIfAbsent. Just double checking, did you run the stream unit
tests?
Agreed.
Looks good to me.
Jason
From: mike.dui...@oracle.com
Subject: RFR: 8035584 : (s) ArrayList(c) should avoid inflation if c is empty
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:33:48 -0700
To: core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net
Hello all;
Revisiting this issue again at long last I have updated the proposed
The code changes looks fine to me. Also, I ran all JavaFX unit tests
with no problems (at least none relating to launching).
-- Kevin
Neil Toda wrote:
Webrev
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ntoda/8035782/
for bug
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8035782
The file :
MIke,
The inner T.V. lawyer in me has been trying and find some loophole that will
allow returning the same empty array from toArray. The spec states ..no
references to it are maintained by this collection. The Saul Goodman loophole
is that this collection implies object member
On 4/25/2014 12:55 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Hello Mandy,
The logic looks fine. Just some style issues. I would like indentation
for the conditionals to be 2 spaces as is currently the standard in
the makefiles. I would also like to have POLICY_SRC_LIST to be
declared empty with := instead of
Hi Paul,
On 04/25/2014 02:12 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
On Apr 23, 2014, at 11:06 AM, Peter Levart peter.lev...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I propose a patch for:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8040892
+1, nice use of putIfAbsent. Just double checking, did you run the stream unit
On 04/25/2014 03:43 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 25/04/14 13:12, Paul Sandoz wrote:
On Apr 23, 2014, at 11:06 AM, Peter Levart peter.lev...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
I propose a patch for:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8040892
+1, nice use of putIfAbsent. Just double
On 04/25/2014 03:32 PM, roger riggs wrote:
Hi,
I think it is sufficient that the test enables the security manager,
adding a java.util as the restricted
restricted package is not necessary.
I think that too. Is it ok, to fix that as part of UNIXProcess merge fix
or should there a separate
It looks like a completely messed this up by not pushing the hotspot parts
first and now I have broken the build in jdk9-dev.
Should I push an anti-delta of the patch? I can prepare a review of it in a
moment.
/Staffan
On 25 apr 2014, at 17:16, Staffan Larsen staffan.lar...@oracle.com wrote:
On 04/25/2014 12:44 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
On Apr 25, 2014, at 12:04 PM, Peter Levart peter.lev...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a ping for any Reviewer and also a question for Vladimir.
Hello Vladimir,
What do you think about the classloader issue in the resolving of classes in
Here is an anti-delta for the broken push. I prepared it using “hg backout”.
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sla/8041948/webrev.00/
bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8041948
If I can get this reviewed quickly I can push the fix soon (and I will spend
the weekend in shame).
Approved!
-Joe
On 04/25/2014 09:36 AM, Staffan Larsen wrote:
Here is an anti-delta for the broken push. I prepared it using “hg backout”.
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sla/8041948/webrev.00/
bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8041948
If I can get this reviewed quickly I can
On 25/04/2014 17:36, Staffan Larsen wrote:
Here is an anti-delta for the broken push. I prepared it using “hg
backout”.
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sla/8041948/webrev.00/
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Esla/8041948/webrev.00/
bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8041948
If I
Thanks Joe - fix has been pushed.
(I will now retreat to a dark place and grumble over the impossibility of
pushing coordinated changes).
/Staffan
On 25 apr 2014, at 18:43, Joe Darcy joe.da...@oracle.com wrote:
Approved!
-Joe
On 04/25/2014 09:36 AM, Staffan Larsen wrote:
Here is an
Hi Peter,
Including the test update with the updated changeset is fine.
(I think Alan had some comments on the refactoring and has not yet had a
chance to comment).
Thanks, Roger
On 4/25/2014 12:18 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
On 04/25/2014 03:32 PM, roger riggs wrote:
Hi,
I think it is
what's wrong with pushing them to jdk9/hs-rt?
We did this a couple of weeks ago with Erik (Gahlin) changes,
it might disrupt nightly, as we still do not have the JPRT changes in place,
but that was the agreement we have for jdk9:
tightly coupled changes should be pushed through the hotspot
In this case I think it would have worked ok since the dependency was from jdk
- hotspot. If the dependency was the other way (or both ways), then such a
push would break nightly testing in hotspot since that testing picks up the
latest promoted JDK (instead of the JDK that is in the same
On 04/25/2014 06:13 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
Hi Paul,
On 04/25/2014 02:12 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
On Apr 23, 2014, at 11:06 AM, Peter Levartpeter.lev...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I propose a patch for:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8040892
+1, nice use of putIfAbsent. Just
Hello,
Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8041683
Patch: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8041683/webrev.00/
It’s not really a solution but the patch changes BitLengthOverflow and
DoubleValueOverflow to catch the OOME and print a warning to STDERR instead of
failing outright.
Thanks Kevin. -neil
On 4/25/2014 8:22 AM, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
The code changes looks fine to me. Also, I ran all JavaFX unit tests
with no problems (at least none relating to launching).
-- Kevin
Neil Toda wrote:
Webrev
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ntoda/8035782/
for bug
25 matches
Mail list logo
