Paulo Levi said the following on 11/21/09 16:48:
But i'm wondering why there isn't a global jvm system option for the new
Thread(runnable).start() to perserve stack traces at least until the
start method.
Why? Probably because not enough people have considered it to be a
necessary thing to
Stephen Colebourne said the following on 11/16/09 18:44:
In this specific case, the question was why include it when you can
use a?b:c. Well, I've seen resistance by developers to that language
feature, and I know some places outright block it in coding standards.
For many, a method call is
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 10:46 PM, David Holmes - Sun Microsystems
david.hol...@sun.com wrote:
Paul,
Paul Benedict said the following on 11/15/09 11:28:
I would like to propose adding this method:
/**
* Selects the object if not {...@code null}; otherwise fallsback to the
* specified default
Paul,
Paul Benedict said the following on 11/15/09 11:28:
I would like to propose adding this method:
/**
* Selects the object if not {...@code null}; otherwise fallsback to the
* specified default object.
*
* @param object the object to test
* @param defaultObject the default object
*
Paulo Levi said the following on 11/12/09 05:31:
In process builder.
No.
I'm not aware of any OS support for waiting for a parent process to die.
David Holmes
Hi Ulf,
Ulf Zibis said the following on 10/08/09 20:07:
Am 08.10.2009 06:35, David Holmes - Sun Microsystems schrieb:
Ulf Zibis said the following on 10/08/09 08:58:
For my better understanding:
Can you explain me the real bug in
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6881442
Ulf Zibis said the following on 10/08/09 21:58:
Am 08.10.2009 12:59, David Holmes - Sun Microsystems schrieb:
It's a memory model issue. The code is like this:
public String getName() {
if (name == null)
name = getName0();
return name;
}
but in theory
Joe,
Joseph D. Darcy said the following on 10/09/09 04:30:
System.out.println( + referenceOfAnyType);
will print null if referenceOfAnyType is null.
This is what the platform has done since the beginning.
Yes because String concatenation can not tolerate null values appearing,
so it is
Stephen Colebourne said the following on 10/07/09 18:10:
BTW, I don't accept the argument that one and only one way to do
something is part of the JDK.
While the JDK is far from a model example of providing one way to do
something, that doesn't mean we should gratuitously add superfluous and
Ulf,
Ulf Zibis said the following on 10/08/09 08:58:
For my better understanding:
Can you explain me the real bug in
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6881442.
In my understanding, loading the name field twice is too only a
performance bug. Please correct me!
Hi Joe,
I thought the point that Jason Mehrens was making was that this:
+public static String toString(Object o) {
+String.valueOf(o);
+}
is actually pointless. Why introduce such redundancy when people can
just use String.valueOf directly ? This doesn't provide any benefit.
Joe,
Joe Darcy said the following on 10/07/09 09:43:
David Holmes - Sun Microsystems wrote:
I thought the point that Jason Mehrens was making was that this:
+public static String toString(Object o) {
+String.valueOf(o); hat Jason Mehrens was making was that this:
+public
Just to add 2c to Alan's method naming comments:
Alan Bateman said the following on 09/13/09 18:07:
Method naming is hard (and often subjective) but there are updates like
this:
PerfCounter.getParentDelegationTime.inc(t1 - t0);
which might be easier to read as:
Hi Mandy,
Mandy Chung said the following on 09/03/09 05:25:
This is related to 6857194: Add hotspot new perf counters to aid class
loading performance measurement.
It's useful to add performance counters in the library code so that perf
data from the JDK and VM can be collected and output in
the bytecode-engine part of the JVM
from the Java runtime platform part. The bytecode engine has few
dependencies on classes, perhaps not even Object, while the runtime
environment has many dependencies.
David Holmes
I, like Carsten, find it odd if this isn't well-defined.
Stephen
David Holmes
As Martin stated what you are looking for is not part of the JVMS nor
the JLS, but the platform specification, which is essentially the entire
set of Java API's as found for example here:
http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/index.html
But the implementation of those classes will then have
Just to clarify ...
Martin Buchholz said the following on 07/16/09 07:24:
In summary,
there are two different bugs at work here,
and neither of them is in LBD.
The hotspot team is working on the LBD deadlock.
Not the hotspot team, just me :) - I am looking into this in my role
as j.u.c
Hi Mario,
I'm not familiar with this particular code but doesn't a value of
this_len==0 imply that there's nothing to do and a whole chunk of code
here can be skipped? Is finding this_len==0 even valid here?
Your patch fixes your problem, but it seems to me the code either
shouldn't get
Martin Buchholz said the following on 07/08/09 02:33:
+ * @throws IllegalArgumentException if the natural order of the array
+ * elements is found to violate the {...@link Comparable} contract
So the proposed spec does not and cannot require any exception to be thrown.
What is
Hi Michael,
But the implementation in processhelper, does not know about JNI, so
it ignores the env
and doesn't throw the exception, which then begs the question as to what
happens if malloc returns NULL in that case? If I understand you right,
the jlup_* functions called from processhelper
Hi Doug,
Thanks for the info, one query though ...
Doug Lea said the following on 05/22/09 21:08:
David Holmes - Sun Microsystems wrote:
Okay well the bug is still open. I think the original intent was to
change toArray() to match this, but I think it's far too late to
change that behaviour
Hi Andrew,
If you use malloc then you have to check for a NULL return and deal with
the error possibility.
Alternatively use strncpy to make sure it's safe and continue to assume
that it will be big enough.
Cheers,
David Holmes
Andrew Haley said the following on 05/22/09 21:10:
Doug Lea said the following on 05/22/09 21:31:
David Holmes - Sun Microsystems wrote:
Thanks for the info, one query though ...
Ummm why didn't it just use:
elementData = c.toArray(new Object[c.size()]);
Because c might be a concurrent collection, so you
don't want to independently
Andrew Haley said the following on 05/22/09 21:45:
David Holmes - Sun Microsystems wrote:
If you use malloc then you have to check for a NULL return and deal with
the error possibility.
Alternatively use strncpy to make sure it's safe and continue to assume
that it will be big enough.
It's
Doug Lea said the following on 05/22/09 21:56:
Sorry; I should have been clearer about why
c.toArray(new Object[c.size()])
is subtly wrong here. ArrayList.size must equal
the number of elements, which might be different
than the array size. If c's size shrinks at an
inconvenient moment during
Florian Weimer said the following on 05/22/09 03:18:
So says the ArrayList(Collection) constructor. Can this bug report be
opened? Is this workaround still necessary?
I'm confused. The bug states:
The Collection documentation claims that
collection.toArray()
is identical
Florian Weimer said the following on 05/22/09 14:46:
It's there, but not in the documentation for toArray():
| Note that toArray(new Object[0]) is identical in function to toArray().
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/java/util/Collection.html#toArray(java.lang.Object[])
do much - it
just iterates over the array - so I don't think it adds much to the
runtime.
In the interests of not writing code that looks like that (i.e.,
yuck!), I recommend leaving it as-is.
Jeremy
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 6:39 PM, David Holmes - Sun Microsystems
david.hol...@sun.com wrote:
Hi
Hi Martin, Jeremy,
I'm assuming inferCaller always expects to find a caller, or at least
that would be the common case - yes? If so then this might be a case
where it is quicker to forego the getStackTraceDepth() call and simply
catch the potential exception if we reach the end.
Aside: we
Alan,
2. File#deleteOnExit doesn't allow IllegalStateException to be thrown so
maybe we should change DeleteOnExit#add to be a no-op if its shutdown
hook is running. If an application is attempting to register files to be
deleted during shutdown it will always be a timing issue if the file is
Hi Mandy,
Looks good but I have one query.
At the top-level there are 3 shutdown hooks:
- console hook
- application hooks
- deleteOnExit hook
and they run in this order. The deleteOnExit hook can be added when
shutdown is in progress, so this allows first-use of deleteOnExit during
an
I concur with the caution here. When looking at the lazy initialization
change, it never occurred to me that first-use could actually occur
after shutdown had commenced.
David
Martin Buchholz said the following on 04/14/09 06:57:
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 10:56, Mandy Chung mandy.ch...@sun.com
Can someone tell me when you can encounter a SIGFPE with si_code
FPE_FLTRES? I'm suspecting this may be a case where a bad operation
doesn't in itself fail but the next (innocent) FP operation gets hit
with the FPE.
Thanks,
David Holmes
Andrew John Hughes said the following on 03/13/09 10:13:
The rest of the code deals with allocating an ID to the
thread creating the LogRequest object and doesn't depend on the global
sequence number, so it doesn't matter if this is incremented by
another thread before the constructor completes.
() + $SharedSecretsHelper);
???
Leave it with you ...
Cheers,
David
Mandy Chung said the following on 03/06/09 07:18:
On 03/05/09 04:18, David Holmes - Sun Microsystems wrote:
Hi Mandy,
Isn't this kind of change risky? With static initialization you know
that once the VM gets up and running then everything
Chris,
Looks good to me.
David Holmes
Christopher Hegarty - Sun Microsystems Ireland said the following on
02/21/09 07:46:
6806649: synchronization bottleneck when constructing Thread subclasses
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/6806649/webrev.00/webrev/
The global
FYI This question was redirected to the
concurrency-inter...@cs.oswego.edu mailing list.
David
Paulo Levi said the following on 02/12/09 01:56:
Why is there no (a horrible name) newFixedCachedThreadPool() static factory?
I think it makes sense for tasks that have a upper throughput, but
In C, the result of an overflowing add of two signed integers is
undefined.
Strewth! That's a surprise to me. I always thought that C defined
integer arithmetic to always wrap. Checking for a negative to detect
overflow is a common pattern - heck it's THE pattern for detecting
overflow
It takes a couple of days for new bugs to become visible in bug parade.
David
Ulf Zibis said the following on 12/16/08 21:22:
Am 15.12.2008 23:19, Xueming Shen schrieb:
So I have created a new Cr #6785335 to keep trace this issue.
Will consider
put this one into 7 later.
This bug
Hi Kumar,
Your signatureDiagnostic method seems to be doing too strong a job - it
isn't checking for the existence of public static void main(String[])
it is checking that if any method with the name main exists then it
must be: public static void main(String[])
So it would generate an
HI Trenton,
This might not be the right place for it but ... RemoteException is
checked because you have to understand that it can happen (and
occasionally will) and you have to think about what can be done to
recover (even if you ultimately decide to just to fail by throwing
some other
41 matches
Mail list logo
