On 01/23/2014 11:55 PM, Miroslaw Niemiec wrote:
Fix for 7:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~miroslawzn/801144/webrev.01/
The new test lacks a license header.
--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team
On Jan 23, 2014, at 11:55 PM, Miroslaw Niemiec
wrote:
> Hello!
>
> This is a simple backport from 8 to 7.
Looks good to me (as Florian points out the test requires a license and updates
to dates on those source files).
> Looking for a review of this even though it only requires a testcase c
On 23/01/2014 22:55, Miroslaw Niemiec wrote:
Hello!
This is a simple backport from 8 to 7.
Looking for a review of this even though it only requires a testcase
change due to the use of lambda expressions.
Since this is the first of these I've encountered I thought I better
play it safe, but ge
Changeset: 7238a870ddb7
Author:erikj
Date: 2014-01-24 10:39 +0100
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/rev/7238a870ddb7
8032632: Wrong version for the first jdk8 fcs build
Reviewed-by: katleman
! common/autoconf/spec.gmk.in
Hi Chris,
thanks for reviewing - I generated the patches today again so now it
should be ok:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mkos/8029237/copyrights-2012-v02.patch
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mkos/8029237/copyrights-2013-v02.patch
Could you push it for me? I have no rights for jdk8.
I suppose the
Hi Stuart,
Please review the webrev
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ewang/JDK-8031179/webrev.00/, if you are OK
with the changes, could you please be my sponsor?
Thanks,
Eric
On 2014/1/24 15:14, Eric Wang wrote:
Hi Stuart,
Thanks for the suggestion! sorry for reply this mail late as i was
busy
Miran,
This bug has not been approved for JDK 8, in fact it was considered and
rejected. The fix should be pushed to jdk9/dev, if applicable. If the
patches apply cleanly I can push it for you. Do you want it in JDK 9?
-Chris.
On 24/01/14 09:41, Miroslav Kos wrote:
Hi Chris,
thanks for rev
Hi Chris,
I missed that, sorry. Yes please push it to jdk9, it will do the job
there too...
Thanks
Miran
On 24/01/14 11:12, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Miran,
This bug has not been approved for JDK 8, in fact it was considered
and rejected. The fix should be pushed to jdk9/dev, if applicable. If
I need a reviewer to fix an issue with the changes in JDK 8 to support
statically linked JNI libraries. The issue arises with tests that have
both JNI_OnLoad and JNI_OnLoad_libname functions defined, and code
attempts to load the library more than once. In that scenario then both
functions ar
Looks good! :-)
Thanks,
/Staffan
On 24 jan 2014, at 12:00, Alan Bateman wrote:
>
> I need a reviewer to fix an issue with the changes in JDK 8 to support
> statically linked JNI libraries. The issue arises with tests that have both
> JNI_OnLoad and JNI_OnLoad_libname functions defined, and
The change looks good to me Alan.
-Chris.
On 24/01/14 11:00, Alan Bateman wrote:
I need a reviewer to fix an issue with the changes in JDK 8 to support
statically linked JNI libraries. The issue arises with tests that have
both JNI_OnLoad and JNI_OnLoad_libname functions defined, and code
atte
On Jan 24, 2014, at 12:00 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>
> I need a reviewer to fix an issue with the changes in JDK 8 to support
> statically linked JNI libraries. The issue arises with tests that have both
> JNI_OnLoad and JNI_OnLoad_libname functions defined, and code attempts to
> load the li
On 24/01/2014 11:19, Paul Sandoz wrote:
:
So more precisely that is "RTLD_LAZY | RTLD_FIRST" ?
Either will do, I went for RTLD_FIRST to be consistent with the hotspot
change.
-Alan
Miran,
Since you have two separate changesets, I created a subtask and pushed
the 2013 updates under that bugId. The changes are now in jdk9/dev.
-Chris.
On 24/01/14 10:50, Miroslav Kos wrote:
Hi Chris,
I missed that, sorry. Yes please push it to jdk9, it will do the job
there too...
Thanks
On Jan 24, 2014, at 12:39 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 24/01/2014 11:19, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>> :
>>
>> So more precisely that is "RTLD_LAZY | RTLD_FIRST" ?
>>
>>
> Either will do, I went for RTLD_FIRST to be consistent with the hotspot
> change.
>
OK, i don't have much experience of this a
Hi,
Here are some patches that update code in java.lang to use newer language
features. I will log a bug and fold into one patch once reviewed.
Locally run java.lang tests all pass, but i will also kick off a JPRT test.
Paul.
--
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psandoz/jdk9/java.lang-diamonds/
--
On 01/24/2014 06:45 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
> I think the update to java.lang.invoke.MutableCallSite.java should be safe:
>
> public static void syncAll(MutableCallSite[] sites) {
> if (sites.length == 0) return;
> STORE_BARRIER.lazySet(0);
> -for (int i = 0; i < sit
Hi,
We are gathering feedback on sun.misc.Unsafe usage. If you have ever used it
please consider taking this survey and helping us out:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/sun-misc-Unsafe
--
We also plan to trawl stuff on repos. I have done a selective bit of that
already, running with a little
On 01/24/2014 06:45 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
Hi,
Here are some patches that update code in java.lang to use newer language
features. I will log a bug and fold into one patch once reviewed.
Locally run java.lang tests all pass, but i will also kick off a JPRT test.
Paul.
--
http://cr.openjdk.ja
Hi,
could you please review the following trivial change:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/8032678/
which fixes the JDK test jdk/test/sun/misc/Version/Version.java to
correctly handle two-digit HotSpot minor version numbers. This became
necessary after change "8031552: Update the Hots
On 24/01/2014 14:45, Paul Sandoz wrote:
--
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psandoz/jdk9/java.lang-StringBuilder/
--
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psandoz/jdk9/java.lang-collapse-catches/
--
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psandoz/jdk9/java.lang-boxing/
I looked through the StringBuilder, multi-catch an
Hi Joe, Alan,
Many thanks! Before folding/committing i will kick off a JPRT job (if i can get
it to work on 9!)
--
BTW if one uses IntelliJ it is very easy to make such changes, review and tweak
them. Select menu item "Analyze -> Run Inspection By Name..". and type in
"migration". Hint hint f
Good change. I got this failure too.
Thanks,
Vladimir
On 1/24/14 9:04 AM, Volker Simonis wrote:
Hi,
could you please review the following trivial change:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/8032678/
which fixes the JDK test jdk/test/sun/misc/Version/Version.java to
correctly handle t
This patch looks fine.
For JDK 9, it might be worth considering using the common code via JVM
functions to replace getProcessHandle, JDK_FindJvmEntry,
JDK_InitJvmEntry for native symbol lookup (jni_util.h and jdk_util.h)
Mandy
On 1/24/2014 3:00 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
I need a reviewer to
Hi Vladimir,
I've just pushed this to jdk9/dev.
I also received an email stating that "this bug needs to be updated,
please request to defer or upgrade to P1 and request for approval". I
assume that's because I entered "8-pool, 9" as "Fix versions".
Now I actually don't know what to do. It seems
And I just noticed from Alejandro's mail that there also exists
hs24.60 for 7u60 now. So if somebody is interested in cleanly passing
the jtreg tests on 7u60 this change will also has to be backported to
7u.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Volker Simonis
wrote:
> Hi Vladimir,
>
> I've just pushe
I've removed the incorrect-for-JBS multiple release values of "8-pool,
9" in the fixVersion field of the main bug record.
-Joe
On 1/24/2014 10:39 AM, Volker Simonis wrote:
Hi Vladimir,
I've just pushed this to jdk9/dev.
I also received an email stating that "this bug needs to be updated,
ple
I updated Fix versions to 8u20.
No need to upgrade since you are not pushing to jdk8.
You need to send request for approval to push into 8u20 to
jdk8u-...@openjdk.java.net
I attached example.
After approval, you can push to:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8u/jdk8u-dev/jdk
Regards,
Vladimir
Hi,
Please review a javadoc change to javax.xml.stream factories. This
change makes it clear that the two args ServiceLoader#load method is
used when the specified classLoader is not null.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk9/8032392/webrev/
Thanks,
Joe
Hi,
It looks fine to me Joe.
best regards,
-- daniel
On 1/24/14 9:31 PM, huizhe wang wrote:
Hi,
Please review a javadoc change to javax.xml.stream factories. This
change makes it clear that the two args ServiceLoader#load method is
used when the specified classLoader is not null.
http://
+1
On Jan 24, 2014, at 3:31 PM, huizhe wang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please review a javadoc change to javax.xml.stream factories. This change
> makes it clear that the two args ServiceLoader#load method is used when the
> specified classLoader is not null.
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk9/8
Thanks Lance, Daniel.
On 1/24/2014 12:53 PM, Lance Andersen - Oracle wrote:
+1
On Jan 24, 2014, at 3:31 PM, huizhe wang wrote:
Hi,
Please review a javadoc change to javax.xml.stream factories. This change makes
it clear that the two args ServiceLoader#load method is used when the specified
Hi Rémi,
> With latest jdk8, it's not true anymore.
> (and most of the time the iterator object is not created anymore at least
> with jdk7+).
Could you please explain it a little bit more? When is that optimization
applied,
e.g. what conditions are required for this optimization, since which v
This would be predicated on escape analysis, whose effectiveness is in turn
driven by sufficient inlining whereby compiler can see that instance
doesn't escape. Inlining, in turn, can be screwed up by (amongst other
things) polymorphic call sites. So in the end, it's all quite brittle and
sensiti
On 01/24/2014 02:53 AM, srikalyan chandrashekar wrote:
Hi David, yes thats right, only benefit i see is we can avoid
assignment to 'r' if pending is null.
Hi Kalyan,
Good to hear that test runs without failures so far.
Regarding assignment of 'r'. What I tried to accomplish with the change
On 01/22/2014 03:19 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Peter,
On 22/01/2014 12:00 AM, Peter Levart wrote:
Hi, David, Kalyan,
Summing up the discussion, I propose the following patch for
ReferenceHandler:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk9-dev/OOMEInReferenceHandler/webrev.01/
I can live wi
Hi Eric,
OK, overall this looks good. There are a few adjustments I'd like you to make
before I push it for you. Part of this is to get you to do a more complete job
of preparing changesets, and part of it is to make my job as a sponsor easier.
:-) Oh, and there a couple style issues as well.
On 1/23/14 10:34 PM, Tristan Yan wrote:
Hi All
Could you review the bug fix for JDK-8032050.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tyan/JDK-8032050/webrev.00/
Description:
This rare happened failure caused because when RMID starts. It don't guarantee
sun.rmi.server.Activation.startActivation finishes.
Fi
Hi Peter, if you are a committer would you like to take this further
(OR) perhaps david could sponsor this change.
--
Thanks
kalyan
On 1/24/14 4:05 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
On 01/24/2014 02:53 AM, srikalyan chandrashekar wrote:
Hi David, yes thats right, only benefit i see is we can avoid
ass
39 matches
Mail list logo
