On 03/15/2018 05:26 PM, mandy chung wrote:
> On 3/15/18 3:58 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> On 03/15/2018 10:38 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>>> To be pedantic, talking about "overriding static methods" is as wrong as
>>> talking about "inheriting
>>> static methods. They can't be inherited and so can'
On 3/15/18 3:58 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
On 03/15/2018 10:38 AM, David Holmes wrote:
To be pedantic, talking about "overriding static methods" is as wrong as talking
about "inheriting
static methods. They can't be inherited and so can't be overridden.
In this context perhaps "intercept" w
On 03/15/2018 09:57 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
On 03/15/2018 08:56 AM, Peter Levart wrote:
Hi Aleksey,
In test, the following comment:
26 * @summary This is a test to ensure that proxies do not inherit static
methods.
I think the word "inherit" is not correct here. Interface static me
On 03/15/2018 10:38 AM, David Holmes wrote:
> On 15/03/2018 5:56 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
>> Hi Aleksey,
>>
>> In test, the following comment:
>>
>> 26 * @summary This is a test to ensure that proxies do not inherit
>> static methods.
>>
>> I think the word "inherit" is not correct here. Interf
On 15/03/2018 5:56 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
Hi Aleksey,
In test, the following comment:
26 * @summary This is a test to ensure that proxies do not inherit
static methods.
I think the word "inherit" is not correct here. Interface static methods
can not be inherited. VM already ensures tha
On 03/15/2018 08:56 AM, Peter Levart wrote:
> Hi Aleksey,
>
> In test, the following comment:
>
> 26 * @summary This is a test to ensure that proxies do not inherit static
> methods.
>
> I think the word "inherit" is not correct here. Interface static methods can
> not be inherited. VM
> al
Hi Aleksey,
In test, the following comment:
26 * @summary This is a test to ensure that proxies do not inherit
static methods.
I think the word "inherit" is not correct here. Interface static methods
can not be inherited. VM already ensures that. Perhaps the comment
should be:
"Thi
On 03/14/2018 10:44 PM, mandy chung wrote:
> David - I think the test fails even in your first version.
>
> It should use ProxyClashTest.class.getClassLoader() to define the proxy class
> as the test is running
> in agent vm mode.
Right. This passes local testing:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sh
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 4:31 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> On 03/14/2018 07:09 PM, David Lloyd wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:00 PM, mandy chung wrote:
>>> Thanks for adding the new test. Looks okay and some minor comment.
>>>
>>> +try {
>>>:
>>> +} catch (Throwable e)
David - I think the test fails even in your first version.
It should use ProxyClashTest.class.getClassLoader() to define the proxy
class as the test is running in agent vm mode.
Mandy
On 3/14/18 2:31 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
Have you tried to run the test
Because it fails:
$ make images
On 03/14/2018 07:09 PM, David Lloyd wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:00 PM, mandy chung wrote:
>> Thanks for adding the new test. Looks okay and some minor comment.
>>
>> +try {
>>:
>> +} catch (Throwable e) {
>> +System.err.println("\nTEST FAILED:");
>> +
On 03/14/2018 07:59 PM, Andrej Golovnin wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> +if (! Modifier.isStatic(m.getModifiers())) {
>
> I think the whitespace after the ‘!’-sign should be removed.
I agree. No problem, I will remove this space in my patch queue.
-Aleksey
Hi David,
+if (! Modifier.isStatic(m.getModifiers())) {
I think the whitespace after the ‘!’-sign should be removed.
Best regards,
Andrej Golovnin
> On 14. Mar 2018, at 19:09, David Lloyd wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:00 PM, mandy chung wrote:
>> Thanks for adding the
On 03/14/2018 07:44 PM, mandy chung wrote:
I assume your colleague at Red Hat will sponsor it for you?
>>> I will find out.
>> I can do it, but I need to get updated on two things:
>> a) Are we pushing JDK changes directly to jdk/jdk now?
>> b) Do we need to run it through JDK Submit first,
On 3/14/18 11:37 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
On 03/14/2018 07:09 PM, David Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:00 PM, mandy chung wrote:
Thanks for adding the new test. Looks okay and some minor comment.
+try {
:
+} catch (Throwable e) {
+System.err.prin
On 03/14/2018 07:09 PM, David Lloyd wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:00 PM, mandy chung wrote:
>> Thanks for adding the new test. Looks okay and some minor comment.
>>
>> +try {
>>:
>> +} catch (Throwable e) {
>> +System.err.println("\nTEST FAILED:");
>> +
On 3/14/18 11:09 AM, David Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:00 PM, mandy chung wrote:
Thanks for adding the new test. Looks okay and some minor comment.
+try {
:
+} catch (Throwable e) {
+System.err.println("\nTEST FAILED:");
+e.printStackT
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:00 PM, mandy chung wrote:
> Thanks for adding the new test. Looks okay and some minor comment.
>
> +try {
>:
> +} catch (Throwable e) {
> +System.err.println("\nTEST FAILED:");
> +e.printStackTrace();
> +throw new
On 3/13/18 5:16 PM, David Lloyd wrote:
OK, done. It's a little bigger now so I'm attaching it.
Thanks for adding the new test. Looks okay and some minor comment.
+try {
:
+} catch (Throwable e) {
+System.err.println("\nTEST FAILED:");
+e.printSta
Looks good
-Sundar
On 14/03/18, 5:49 AM, David Lloyd wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 7:16 PM, David Lloyd wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 6:31 PM, mandy chung wrote:
I prefer to keep the original test case i.e. create a proxy class from
Runnable and Observer. Instead add a new test case to
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 7:16 PM, David Lloyd wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 6:31 PM, mandy chung wrote:
>> I prefer to keep the original test case i.e. create a proxy class from
>> Runnable and Observer. Instead add a new test case to create a proxy class
>> with ClashWithRunnable, Runnable a
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 6:31 PM, mandy chung wrote:
> I prefer to keep the original test case i.e. create a proxy class from
> Runnable and Observer. Instead add a new test case to create a proxy class
> with ClashWithRunnable, Runnable and Observer and verify that it does not
> include static m
On 3/13/18 4:06 PM, David Lloyd wrote:
I worked up a little patch for 8188240. I was able to co-opt an
existing test which now fails before the patch and passes after. It's
a tiny patch so I'm including it inline. I've CC'd Mandy because she
filed the original bug.
Here's the patch (use patc
I worked up a little patch for 8188240. I was able to co-opt an
existing test which now fails before the patch and passes after. It's
a tiny patch so I'm including it inline. I've CC'd Mandy because she
filed the original bug.
Here's the patch (use patch -p1 to apply):
cut --- 8<
24 matches
Mail list logo