On 24/04/2013 7:09 PM, Rickard Bäckman wrote:
Nils,
no it doesn't matter. Rather intended. By initializing it to NULL we forced
implementors to use a pointer that would have to be initialized at some point.
Now it can be a class / struct
that is instead initialized by a default constructor.
So that addressed my question on the missing setter. But doesn't this
also mean that you are now prohibiting it from being a simple
pointer-type as there is no way to set it? Isn't maintaining the setter
more flexible as it can be used in either case (direct assignment or
copy constructor). Though lack of initialization in the current code
still looks wrong.
David
/R
On Apr 24, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Nils Loodin wrote:
Does it matter that the pointer gets initialized to NULL before, but not now?
There isn't any null checks anywhere that depends on that?
Regards,
Nils
On 04/24/2013 09:51 AM, Rickard Bäckman wrote:
Hi all,
can I have a couple of reviews for this small change. The short story is that
the current way the thread-local _trace_buffer is somewhat inflexible.
By changing the type of the getter this structure gets more flexible for
different implementations. I also think that the name is misused. Just naming it
to _trace_data is more generic and less implementation-specific.
The webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rbackman/8013117/
Thanks
/R
