Re: RFR (S): JDK-8164086: Checked JNI pending exception check should be cleared when returning to Java frame

On 6/09/2016 5:51 PM, David Simms wrote: Updated webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsimms/8164086/webrev3/ No further comments from me, but note my original comment re the platform specific code. More below. On 06/09/16 01:20, David Holmes wrote: Hi David, On 5/09/2016 6:02 PM, David

Re: RFR: JDK-8161230 ClassLoader: add resource methods returning java.util.stream.Stream

> On Sep 3, 2016, at 12:55 PM, Patrick Reinhart wrote: > > Hi Mandy, > > The current changes can be found here: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~reinhapa/reviews/8161230/webrev.02 > > > On 02.09.2016 23:11, Mandy Chung wrote: >>> On Sep 2, 2016, at 2:50 AM, Patrick

Re: RFR 8164691 Stream specification clarifications for iterate and collect

> On 3 Sep 2016, at 15:06, Stefan Zobel wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > there's a small copy & paste error in the code samples in > Double/Int/LongStream#iterate() > > Example DoubleStream#iterate: > > * {@code > * for (T index=seed; hasNext.test(index); index =

Re: JEP 254: Compact Strings - length limits

On Sep 6, 2016, at 2:18 PM, Tim Ellison wrote: > > People stash all sorts of things in (immutable) Strings. Reducing the > limits in JDK9 seems like a regression. Was there any consideration to > using the older Java 8 StringCoding APIs for UTF-16 strings (already >

Re: JEP 254: Compact Strings - length limits

On 9/6/16, 2:18 PM, Tim Ellison wrote: Do we have a real use case that impacted by this change? People stash all sorts of things in (immutable) Strings. Reducing the limits in JDK9 seems like a regression. Was there any consideration to using the older Java 8 StringCoding APIs for UTF-16

Re: JEP 254: Compact Strings - length limits

On 06/09/16 19:04, Xueming Shen wrote: > On 9/6/16, 10:09 AM, Tim Ellison wrote: >> Has it been noted that while JEP 254 reduces the space occupied by one >> byte per character strings, moving from a char[] to byte[] >> representation universally means that the maximum length of a UTF-16 >> (two

Re: JEP 254: Compact Strings - length limits

On 9/6/16, 12:58 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote: On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Xueming Shen > wrote: Yes, it's a known "limit" given the nature of the approach. It is not considered to be an "incompatible change", because

Re: JEP 254: Compact Strings - length limits

On Sep 6, 2016, at 12:58 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Xueming Shen > wrote: > >> Yes, it's a known "limit" given the nature of the approach. It is not >> considered >> to be an "incompatible change", because

Re: RFR: JDK-8161360,,Deprecated vfork() should not be used on Solaris

On 06/09/2016 21:01, Phil Race wrote: FWIW "+1" from me since I just used/needed that patch to get my build to continue on Solaris 11.3. If you need it I have a jumbo patch that gets J9 to build on both S11.3 and S12. I'm working on splitting it up into individual patches and getting them

Re: RFR: JDK-8161360,,Deprecated vfork() should not be used on Solaris

FWIW "+1" from me since I just used/needed that patch to get my build to continue on Solaris 11.3. -phil. On 9/6/2016 10:28 AM, Roger Riggs wrote: Hi Alan, Not a problem, I usually use mq to wrangle patches. (per repo) Thanks, Roger On 9/6/2016 1:25 PM, Alan Burlison wrote: On 06/09/2016

Re: JEP 254: Compact Strings - length limits

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Xueming Shen wrote: > Yes, it's a known "limit" given the nature of the approach. It is not > considered > to be an "incompatible change", because the max length the String class > and > the corresponding buffer/builder classes can

Re: Filing Bugs Against the Core Libs

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Russ Harmon wrote: > > > The actual code that throws it doesn't know the exact reason. > > > To my understanding though, the reason is not outside of the purview of the > JDK (aka, the rejection is not decided upon by outside code), and

Re: JEP 254: Compact Strings - length limits

On 9/6/16, 10:09 AM, Tim Ellison wrote: Has it been noted that while JEP 254 reduces the space occupied by one byte per character strings, moving from a char[] to byte[] representation universally means that the maximum length of a UTF-16 (two bytes per char) string is now halved? Hi Tim, Yes,

Re: RFR: JDK-8161360,,Deprecated vfork() should not be used on Solaris

Hi Alan, Not a problem, I usually use mq to wrangle patches. (per repo) Thanks, Roger On 9/6/2016 1:25 PM, Alan Burlison wrote: On 06/09/2016 18:10, Roger Riggs wrote: ok, I will sponsor it. Thanks. (Usually the patches are relative to the repo being modified). I can regen it if you

Re: RFR: JDK-8161360,,Deprecated vfork() should not be used on Solaris

On 06/09/2016 18:10, Roger Riggs wrote: ok, I will sponsor it. Thanks. (Usually the patches are relative to the repo being modified). I can regen it if you want, I've been doing a lot of cross-repo patches and have got into the habit of generating them from the topmost repo ;-) -- Alan

Re: RFR: JDK-8161360,,Deprecated vfork() should not be used on Solaris

ok, I will sponsor it. (Usually the patches are relative to the repo being modified). Thanks, Roger On 9/6/2016 3:35 AM, Alan Burlison wrote: On 01/09/2016 14:34, Alan Burlison wrote: Changes looks good for me. Thanks. Could someone possibly sponsor this for me? I don't have commit

Re: Filing Bugs Against the Core Libs

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 7:27 PM David Holmes wrote: > Hi Russ, > > On 26/08/2016 5:39 AM, Russ Harmon wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I'd like to report a (minor) feature request / bug in the core libs. > What's > > the best way for me to do that? > > Brian already gave you

Re: RFR: JDK-8165161 Solaris: /usr/ccs /opt/sfw and /opt/csw are dead, references should be expunged

Hi Alan, Looks ok from the core-libs perspective. Roger On 9/6/2016 3:38 AM, Alan Burlison wrote: On 01/09/2016 18:43, Alan Burlison wrote: I posted this originally on build-dev, it was suggested I should also post it to core-libs-dev for review of some of the changes. /usr/ccs /opt/sfw

Re: Participating on https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8156070

On 09/06/2016 01:49 AM, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan wrote: > I decided to have a crack at "JDK-8134373 explore potential uses of > convenience factories within the JDK" today. I recognise it's only a P4 bug > and most likely won't be prioritised for Java 9, but I believe I found a > number of places

Re: RFR (S): JDK-8164086: Checked JNI pending exception check should be cleared when returning to Java frame

Updated webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsimms/8164086/webrev3/ On 06/09/16 01:20, David Holmes wrote: Hi David, On 5/09/2016 6:02 PM, David Simms wrote: Hi David, I can make the checks silent, but the launcher itself produces warnings from checked JNI (it's use of unchecked Java

Re: RFR: JDK-8165161 Solaris: /usr/ccs /opt/sfw and /opt/csw are dead, references should be expunged

On 01/09/2016 18:43, Alan Burlison wrote: I posted this originally on build-dev, it was suggested I should also post it to core-libs-dev for review of some of the changes. /usr/ccs /opt/sfw and /opt/csw are all obsolete and should be removed from the Solaris-related build infrastructure. Bug:

Re: RFR: JDK-8161360,,Deprecated vfork() should not be used on Solaris

On 01/09/2016 14:34, Alan Burlison wrote: Changes looks good for me. Thanks. Could someone possibly sponsor this for me? I don't have commit rights yet... Ping... -- Alan Burlison --