Hi Serguei,
Changes look good.
Chris
On 11/12/18 8:06 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
On 11/12/18 20:05, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Jc,
Thank you a lot for
Thanks a lot, Jc!
Serguei
On 11/13/18 08:59, JC Beyler wrote:
Ok makes sense then: it is not specified what
happens to locals that are out of scope and therefore depending
on the compiler/modes/tiers, you could get a different return in
Ok makes sense then: it is not specified what happens to locals that are
out of scope and therefore depending on the compiler/modes/tiers, you could
get a different return in those cases.
Webrev looks good to me now :)
Jc
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 8:06 PM serguei.spit...@oracle.com <
On 11/12/18 20:05,
serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Jc,
Thank you a lot for reviewing!
On 11/12/18 09:35, JC Beyler wrote:
Hi Serguei,
The fix looks good (though I
Hi Jc,
Thank you a lot for reviewing!
On 11/12/18 09:35, JC Beyler wrote:
Hi Serguei,
The fix looks good (though I never like commented out code,
why do we not just remove the lines and add a simple
Please, review a fix for:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8213525
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sspitsyn/webrevs/2018/8213525-unstable-test.1/
Summary:
A couple of the checks in new unit test developed for
