That's fine. LGMT.
Chris
On 3/13/19 8:00 PM, Jean Christophe
Beyler wrote:
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the review, we could debate here about
reinterpret vs static (my theory/understanding was do s
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the review, we could debate here about reinterpret vs static (my
theory/understanding was do static if all else fails (and then do C style
if that fails)) but really I'm going to do new/delete right after this and
so all those casts will disappear in the next webrev. So in my
Hi JC,
Looks good. My only question is your use of reinterpret_cast
instead of static_cast. Not an area of C++ I know much about,
other than having just read some varying opinions that aren't all
that good at explaining what's going on.
thanks
Hi Jc,
I do not see any issues, it looks good.
This is nice as the code became simpler.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 3/13/19 16:07, Jean Christophe Beyler wrote:
Hi all,
Could I get a review of:
I don't know how to interpret "ignore checks if thread was collected",
so it doesn't add much value for me.
How about something like "ignore ownedMonitors() failure"?
dl
On 3/13/19 8:54 AM, Gary Adams wrote:
One last set of diffs ...
- added comments on the ignored exceptions
- commented o
Thank you Serguei!
Coleen
On 3/13/19 1:48 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Coleen,
Both backports look good to me.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 3/12/19 15:07, coleen.phillim...@oracle.com wrote:
Summary: Add a function to call NSME in ResolvedMethodTable to
replace deleted methods.
Please
Hi Chris,
Looks good.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 3/12/19 23:28, Chris Plummer wrote:
Hi,
Please review the following:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8220352
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cjplummer/8220352/webrev.00/
The possible use of an invalid jni handle is being avoided by not
deletin
Hi Daniil,
LGTM++
Thanks,
Serguei
On 3/11/19 17:43, Jean Christophe Beyler wrote:
Hi Daniil,
Looks good to me :)
Thanks,
Jc
On Mon, Mar 11, 201
Thanks for the reviews!
On 3/13/19 8:27 AM, Jean Christophe
Beyler wrote:
Looks good to me as well :). I was going to ask a
question but got the answer in the bug comment you put :),
thanks for being thorough in the explanat
Hi Coleen,
Both backports look good to me.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 3/12/19 15:07, coleen.phillim...@oracle.com wrote:
Summary: Add a function to call NSME in ResolvedMethodTable to replace
deleted methods.
Please review a backport of this bug to JDK 11 and 12. The JDK 12
backport required some
Yes for me :) (though I'm not a Reviewer and I don't like commented code
generally, for diagnostic tests I usually just put a flag that is off by
default but no need to change it for me/this :-)),
Jc
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 8:55 AM Gary Adams wrote:
> One last set of diffs ...
>- added comme
One last set of diffs ...
- added comments on the ignored exceptions
- commented out excessive diagnostic print out
(this will remove the jtreg truncated output)
Ok to use dan, dean and jc as reveiwers?
diff --git a/test/jdk/com/sun/jdi/SimulResumerTest.java
b/test/jdk/com/sun/jdi/Simu
-- Původní e-mail --
Od: Daniel Fuchs
Komu: netbe...@post.cz, jdk-...@openjdk.java.net
Datum: 19. 2. 2019 19:56:19
Předmět: Re: JMX
"Hi,
JMX related issues are mostly discussed on the
serviceability-dev mailing list these days.
On 19/02/2019 09:31, netbe...@post.cz wrote:
>
> De
There is a caution in the disableCollection() docs that it should be used
sparingly, because the behavior between debug and non-debug runs
could differ. I actually prefer leaving the test in it's racy configuration.
The collection of the object is not central to what the test is actually
trying to
Looks good to me.
On 3/13/19 2:28 AM, Chris Plummer wrote:
Hi,
Please review the following:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8220352
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cjplummer/8220352/webrev.00/
The possible use of an invalid jni handle is being avoided by not
deleting the globalrefs as t
15 matches
Mail list logo
