On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 07:55:52 GMT, Peter Levart wrote:
>> Oops, yes you are correct!
>
> Hi,
> I think the synchronized block was redundant already in original code. Since
> the entire handle method is `static synchronized` and it is the only method
> that modifies the `handlers` and `signals`
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:45:28 GMT, David M. Lloyd wrote:
>> Hello David, I suspect you mean `handlers.put(sig, handler)` and not
>> `handlers.replace(...)`? And yes, I think what you suggest will help remove
>> the synchronized block here.
>
> Oops, yes you are correct!
Hi,
I think the
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:31:06 GMT, Andrey Turbanov wrote:
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/bc28baeba9360991e9b7575e1fbe178d873ccfc1/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/misc/Signal.java#L177-L178
>>
>> Instead of separate Hashtable.get/remove calls we can just use value
>> returned by
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 06:45:00 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/misc/Signal.java line 180:
>>
>>> 178: if (newH == 2) {
>>> 179: handlers.put(sig, handler);
>>> 180: }
>>
>> If you made this change instead:
>>
>>
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/bc28baeba9360991e9b7575e1fbe178d873ccfc1/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/misc/Signal.java#L177-L178
>
> Instead of separate Hashtable.get/remove calls we can just use value returned
> by `remove`,
> It results in cleaner and a bit faster code.
