I am currently in a meeting and will take a look after this meeting
finished.
Thanks,
Valerie
On 1/30/2017 2:27 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
I judge this to be more serious than P3, even though correctness is
not affected, since production services have noticed unacceptable
performance regressions.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Sean Mullan <sean.mul...@oracle.com
<mailto:sean.mul...@oracle.com>> wrote:
The fix looks ok to me, but I would also like Valerie to review it
since she is more familiar with this code.
As far as JDK 9 goes, we are in Rampdown Phase 1. According to the
rules [1], since it is a P3 and is new in JDK 9 we should try to
fix this issue if we can.
Were you offering to push this fix or did you want someone in the
Security group to take this over from you?
--Sean
[1] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk9/rdp-1
<http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk9/rdp-1>
On 1/30/17 2:24 PM, Chuck Rasbold wrote:
Here's a tiny fix for an unintended, but clear, performance
regression.
I'm not familiar of the current criteria for jdk9 changes.
Please advise
this mostly HotSpot engineer if / how to move forward.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rasbold/8173581/webrev.00/
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Erasbold/8173581/webrev.00/>
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rasbold/8173581/webrev.00/
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Erasbold/8173581/webrev.00/>>
