Please note also that a couple of new files were touched:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8077332/webrev.01/jaxws/src/java.annotations.common/share/classes/javax/annotation/PostConstruct.java.udiff.html
We discussed where we should be using the new Unsafe unaligned
intrinsics.
I found these:
ByteBufferAs$Type$Buffer. These use slow bytewise accesses,
and should be converted.
DirectByteBuffer. This probes for unaligned memory support
and uses byte-by-byte
I'm sorry, two extra files touched -
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8077332/webrev.01/jaxws/src/java.activation/share/classes/javax/activation/MailcapCommandMap.java.udiff.html
Hello Joe,
Thanks!
as I mentioned, pre/pre is needed for the code snippet.
Oh, yes, that was that was forgotten.
BTW, have you compiled
Yes; some javadoc errors were fixed as well
and verified the Javadoc after the changes?
Only briefly. So as the above example shows I have to look it over
Hello Lance,
Thanks.
Regards,
Alexander
On 16.04.2015 19:58, Lance Andersen wrote:
Hi Alexander,
These seem to be OK
Best
Lance
On Apr 16, 2015, at 10:07 AM, alexander stepanov
alexander.v.stepa...@oracle.com
mailto:alexander.v.stepa...@oracle.com wrote:
I'm sorry, two extra files
On 4/15/15 12:23 PM, huizhe wang wrote:
Please review the change related to the non-SE org.w3c.dom.** API:
org.w3c.dom.css, org.w3c.dom.html, org.w3c.dom.stylesheets,
org.w3c.dom.xpath.
They came into Java SE along with the DOM API, but were not part of
the Java SE and JAXP specification.
On 02/18/2015 08:59 PM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
The code which eliminates MemBars for scalarized objects was added in jdk8:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/hotspot/rev/6f3fd5150b67
Right enough, but it only works with boxed objects. The
Precedent of the MemBarNode is needed by
Hi Alexander,
Looks very good. Thanks for making all the changes!
Please note that for the JAXWS, you may need to check with JAXWS/Miran
(miroslav@oracle.com). Changes to JAXWS generally goes into the
standalone first. They do periodic integration.
For the jaxp portion:
---
Hi Alexander,
These seem to be OK
Best
Lance
On Apr 16, 2015, at 10:07 AM, alexander stepanov
alexander.v.stepa...@oracle.com wrote:
I'm sorry, two extra files touched -
Thanks Mandy!
Joe
On 4/16/2015 9:43 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
On 4/15/15 12:23 PM, huizhe wang wrote:
Please review the change related to the non-SE org.w3c.dom.** API:
org.w3c.dom.css, org.w3c.dom.html, org.w3c.dom.stylesheets,
org.w3c.dom.xpath.
They came into Java SE along with the DOM
On Apr 16, 2015, at 12:56 PM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
We discussed where we should be using the new Unsafe unaligned
intrinsics.
I found these:
They look like good candidates. I did a quick search in the JDK src code
(usages of getByte/Short/Int/Long) and could not find any
Hi Roger,
thank you for your answer!
The reason I take an interest is not just theoretical. We (SAP) use our JVM
for our test infrastructure and we had exactly the problem allChildren() is
designed to solve: killing a process tree related to a specific tests
(similar to jtreg tests) in case of
Am 16.04.2015 um 15:25 schrieb Paul Sandoz:
They look like good candidates. I did a quick search in the JDK src code
(usages of getByte/Short/Int/Long) and could not find any others.
I guess there are plenty of candidates in coders of sun.nio.cs.
Additionally: For some coders it may be
Am 16.04.2015 um 15:25 schrieb Paul Sandoz:
They look like good candidates. I did a quick search in the JDK src code
(usages of getByte/Short/Int/Long) and could not find any others.
I guess there are plenty of candidates in coders of sun.nio.cs.
At the end it wouldn't make me wonder if we
Roland, thanks a lot for the review!
Best regards,
Vladimir Ivanov
On 4/15/15 7:43 PM, Roland Westrelin wrote:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vlivanov/8057967/webrev.01/
That looks good to me.
Roland.
Because that code was added and tested only for boxed objects (goal of
6934604) - I wanted to avoid wider effects of those changes.
I think we can remove the limitation now in jd9 sources since we have
enough time to tests it.
Regards,
Vladimir
On 4/16/15 10:07 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On
Hello,
While preparing to turn on doclint build warnings on more modules, I
noticed there are missing javadoc comments on various classes in
javax.transaction.
Please review the patch below which add in some obvious javadoc.
Thanks,
-Joe
diff -r 488af0e8ee33
Hi Joe,
Looks fine.
Roger
On 4/16/2015 2:08 PM, joe darcy wrote:
Hello,
While preparing to turn on doclint build warnings on more modules, I
noticed there are missing javadoc comments on various classes in
javax.transaction.
Please review the patch below which add in some obvious
Hi Joe,
This Looks OK. I have already had discussions with the Java EE leads about
adding the SUID and pushing the changes back upstream (and updating other
classes in upstream javax.transaction as needed.
I will be doing that soon and will push these changes as well.
Best,
Lance
On Apr
Hi Lance,
On 4/16/2015 11:27 AM, Lance Andersen wrote:
Hi Joe,
This Looks OK. I have already had discussions with the Java EE leads
about adding the SUID and pushing the changes back upstream (and
updating other classes in upstream javax.transaction as needed.
I will be doing that soon
This looks okay but I think we should get Lance to check the EE folks
because this area has a standalone JSR. It came up a few months too with
the SUID and I think Lance is following up with them on that too.
-Alan
On 16/04/2015 19:08, joe darcy wrote:
Hello,
While preparing to turn on
21 matches
Mail list logo
