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 opinion if your Looks good can be a LGTM then we will remove the casts in the next ones.
Let me know what you think. Thanks, Jc On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 5:59 PM Chris Plummer <chris.plum...@oracle.com> wrote: > 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, > > Chris > > On 3/13/19 4:07 PM, Jean Christophe Beyler wrote: > > Hi all, > > Could I get a review of: > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8220628 > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8220628/ > > I've not tried to do anything special here to keep the review simple; in > the next webrev or two, I'll move more code to more C++ style and then work > on diagnostic print-outs (in C++ :-)) to figure out the issues with the > bugs related to these tests. > > This passed testing on my dev machine and a submit repo run (which I'm not > sure runs these test but still good to check). > > Thanks! > Jc > > > -- Thanks, Jc
