On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 19:08:03 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote:
> This is a follow up update per comments in [JDK-8287384
> PR](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/8907). The tier1 and tier2 test in
> open part looks good to me. Please help to run Mach5 just case the closed
> test cases are impac
> This is a follow up update per comments in [JDK-8287384
> PR](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/8907). The tier1 and tier2 test in
> open part looks good to me. Please help to run Mach5 just case the closed
> test cases are impacted.
Xue-Lei Andrew Fan has updated the pull request increme
On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 21:07:16 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote:
>> This is a follow up update per comments in [JDK-8287384
>> PR](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/8907). The tier1 and tier2 test in
>> open part looks good to me. Please help to run Mach5 just case the closed
>> test cases are i
Please review a small fix in CryptoPolicyParser class that it should not pass
“processedPermissions” parameter by value.
Ran MACH5 tier1 and tier2 without failures.
-
Commit messages:
- 8286779: javax.crypto.CryptoPolicyParser#isConsistent always returns 'true'
Changes: https://git
On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 21:07:16 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote:
>> This is a follow up update per comments in [JDK-8287384
>> PR](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/8907). The tier1 and tier2 test in
>> open part looks good to me. Please help to run Mach5 just case the closed
>> test cases are i
On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 20:45:07 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
> JDK-8287384 causes
> `test/jdk/java/lang/invoke/defineHiddenClass/UnloadingTest.java` to timeout
> when running with fastdebug VM. I think this might be caused by more frequent
> GCs.
>
> I tried your patch and the test fails.
I updated t
> This is a follow up update per comments in [JDK-8287384
> PR](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/8907). The tier1 and tier2 test in
> open part looks good to me. Please help to run Mach5 just case the closed
> test cases are impacted.
Xue-Lei Andrew Fan has updated the pull request increme
On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 19:08:03 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote:
> This is a follow up update per comments in [JDK-8287384
> PR](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/8907). The tier1 and tier2 test in
> open part looks good to me. Please help to run Mach5 just case the closed
> test cases are impac
Hashtable doesn't allow `null` values. So, instead of pair
`containsKey`/`remove` calls, we can directly call `remove` and then compare
result with `null`.
https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/2c461acfebd28fe5ef62805cbb004f91a3b18f08/src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/jar/JarVerifier.java#L433-
This is a follow up update per comments in [JDK-8287384
PR](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/8907). The tier1 and tier2 test in
open part looks good to me. Please help to run Mach5 just case the closed test
cases are impacted.
-
Commit messages:
- Remove trailing white space
On Fri, 27 May 2022 18:40:32 GMT, XenoAmess wrote:
>> as title.
>
> XenoAmess has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> do it as naotoj said
`java.io` and `java.nio` look all right.
-
Marked as reviewed by bpb (Reviewer
On Fri, 27 May 2022 18:40:32 GMT, XenoAmess wrote:
>> as title.
>
> XenoAmess has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> do it as naotoj said
Reviewed i18n-related changes and they look good. One minor suggestion in
`Calendar`, but t
On Fri, 27 May 2022 18:40:32 GMT, XenoAmess wrote:
>> as title.
>
> XenoAmess has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> do it as naotoj said
Reviewers for i18n, net, nio, and security, please review call site changes in
your areas.
On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 15:11:50 GMT, Сергей Цыпанов wrote:
> `List.of()` along with `Set.of()` create unmodifiable `List/Set` but with
> smaller footprint comparing to `Arrays.asList()` / `new HashSet()` when
> called with vararg of size 0, 1, 2.
>
> In general replacement of `Arrays.asList()` wit
On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 07:50:58 GMT, Сергей Цыпанов wrote:
>> `List.of()` along with `Set.of()` create unmodifiable `List/Set` but with
>> smaller footprint comparing to `Arrays.asList()` / `new HashSet()` when
>> called with vararg of size 0, 1, 2.
>>
>> In general replacement of `Arrays.asList()
> `List.of()` along with `Set.of()` create unmodifiable `List/Set` but with
> smaller footprint comparing to `Arrays.asList()` / `new HashSet()` when
> called with vararg of size 0, 1, 2.
>
> In general replacement of `Arrays.asList()` with `List.of()` is dubious as
> the latter is null-hostile
16 matches
Mail list logo
