Fixes look good.
Just a minor comment at l.150 of ParameterCache: the test could use '<='??
On 22 Sep 2012, at 00:45, Valerie (Yu-Ching) Peng wrote:
> Hi, Vinnie,
>
> Can you please review these following 2 JDK8 fixes? They are straight forward
> regressions found by SQE tests introduced as byp
Vinnie,
Thanks for the comment!
The reason that I use "<" instead of "<=" on line 150 is because that
(1024, 160) is supported by the DSAGenParameterSpec class and thus I
didn't view this as legacy value. Either init(...) calls should work for
1024, so I'd like to use the newer form of init(..
Changeset: 8987971bcb45
Author:jjg
Date: 2012-09-24 14:04 -0700
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/langtools/rev/8987971bcb45
7196462: JavacProcessingEnvironment should tolerate BasicJavacTask
Reviewed-by: mcimadamore
! src/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/api/BasicJavacTask.
Are there situations where we might overflow the int?
For example, in CertificateRequest.messageLength()
for (int i = 0; i < authorities.length; i++) {
len += authorities[i].length();
}
What if len overflows?
Also, all of these field's callers are overflow-1?
Brad
On 9/25/2012 9:23 AM, Brad Wetmore wrote:
> Are there situations where we might overflow the int?
>
Yes, it is possible for many integer add operations. As 2^32 is a lot
bigger than 2^24 (the biggest number TLS protocol allows), I'm not
worried too much about int32 overflow.
Integer overflow chec
Hi Stuart
Please take a look at
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/7200682/webrev.00/
So I am now using "java -XshowSettings:properties | grep os.arch" to
find out the arch. Not sure if there is a more formal way to do that.
I've added core-libs-dev to CC hoping more people have their opi
