Re: RFR: 8176508 Update JAX-WS RI integration to latest version

2017-03-16 Thread Bill Shannon
I got no response to this so I'm assuming everyone is happy now! :-) Bill Shannon wrote on 03/15/2017 03:20 PM: > Looks like I have a chance to tweak the comments for the JAF changes. > Any final comments before I apply these changes to all 4 copies of > this code? > > $ diff -u

Re: RFR[9] 8160956: Runtime.Version.compareTo/compareToIgnoreOpt problem

2017-03-16 Thread Paul Sandoz
> On 16 Mar 2017, at 14:33, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote: > > 2017/3/16 14:31:21 -0700, pavel.ra...@oracle.com: >> Exactly: >> >> * >> * This is a value-based >> * class; use of identity-sensitive operations (including reference equality >> * ({@code ==}), identity hash code, or

Re: RFR[9] 8160956: Runtime.Version.compareTo/compareToIgnoreOpt problem

2017-03-16 Thread mark . reinhold
2017/3/16 14:31:21 -0700, pavel.ra...@oracle.com: > Exactly: > > * > * This is a value-based > * class; use of identity-sensitive operations (including reference equality > * ({@code ==}), identity hash code, or synchronization) on instances of > * {@code Optional} may have unpredictable results

Re: RFR[9] 8160956: Runtime.Version.compareTo/compareToIgnoreOpt problem

2017-03-16 Thread Pavel Rappo
Exactly: * * This is a value-based * class; use of identity-sensitive operations (including reference equality * ({@code ==}), identity hash code, or synchronization) on instances of * {@code Optional} may have unpredictable results and should be avoided. * > On 16 Mar 2017, at 20:41, Paul

JDK 9 ServiceLoader bug

2017-03-16 Thread Chris Dennis
Hi All, I’ve found what I believe could (or should) be considered a bug with the way the ServiceLoader interacts with the classpath in JDK 9. Consider the following code: package example; import java.util.ServiceLoader; public class Main { public static void

Re: RFR[9] 8160956: Runtime.Version.compareTo/compareToIgnoreOpt problem

2017-03-16 Thread Paul Sandoz
> On 16 Mar 2017, at 13:27, Pavel Rappo wrote: > > Paul, > > One more question. I have read Version's javadoc and my impression is that > Version could be a value-type class. Is that right? > I suppose it could if there were such a thing as of today. It's not

Re: [9] RFR(L) 8158168: SIGSEGV: CollectedHeap::fill_with_objects(HeapWord*, unsigned long, bool)+0xa8

2017-03-16 Thread dean . long
On 3/16/17 2:52 AM, Tobias Hartmann wrote: As a safety net, I added asserts around the intrinsic calls, and a try/catch that so any out of bounds exception turns into an assert error as well. So the assert and try/catch are only necessary to catch invalid offsets passed to the C1 intrinsic,

Re: RFR 8175013: Add @Generated Annotation

2017-03-16 Thread Alan Bateman
On 16/03/2017 15:44, Ron Shapiro wrote: Are there any plans to make the new @Generated annotation have CLASS retention? We have a number of compile-time tools that would like to know when files are generated. No need at runtime, but it would be good to have this information stick around.

Re: [9] RFR(L) 8158168: SIGSEGV: CollectedHeap::fill_with_objects(HeapWord*, unsigned long, bool)+0xa8

2017-03-16 Thread dean . long
On 3/15/17 6:19 PM, David Holmes wrote: src/share/vm/classfile/javaClasses.hpp Given the the only call to java_lang_String::set_debug_intrinsics is within an ifdef, shouldn't the declaration and definition of the method also be guarded the same way? OK I'll change it. dl

Re: JDK 10 RFR of 8176894: Provide specialized implementation for default methods putIfAbsent, computeIfAbsent, computeIfPresent, compute in TreeMap

2017-03-16 Thread Aleksey Shipilev
On 03/16/2017 08:04 PM, Sergey Kuksenko wrote: > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~skuksenko/corelibs/utils/8176894/webrev.00/ Looks good. I assume there are enough tests to cover these paths? *) Missing whitespace (multiple times in the similar line): if(replaceOld) { Thanks, -Aleksey

JDK 10 RFR of 8176894: Provide specialized implementation for default methods putIfAbsent, computeIfAbsent, computeIfPresent, compute in TreeMap

2017-03-16 Thread Sergey Kuksenko
Hi All, Please, review: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176894 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~skuksenko/corelibs/utils/8176894/webrev.00/ The issue was created for JDK10 in order to don't disturb JDK9 before launch. -- Best regards, Sergey Kuksenko

Re: RFR[9] 8160956: Runtime.Version.compareTo/compareToIgnoreOpt problem

2017-03-16 Thread Paul Sandoz
> On 16 Mar 2017, at 08:27, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote: > > 2017/3/16 8:17:03 -0700, pavel.ra...@oracle.com: >> Please review the following trivial change for [1]: >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prappo/8160956/webrev.00/ > > Looks good to me. > >> ... >> >> P.S. While we are in this

Re: RFR[9] 8176882: Incorrect integer comparison in version numbers

2017-03-16 Thread Paul Sandoz
> On 16 Mar 2017, at 10:22, Pavel Rappo wrote: > > Hello, > > Please review the following trivial change for [1]: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prappo/8176882/webrev.00/ > +1 Paul.

RFR[9] 8176882: Incorrect integer comparison in version numbers

2017-03-16 Thread Pavel Rappo
Hello, Please review the following trivial change for [1]: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prappo/8176882/webrev.00/ Thanks, -Pavel [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176882

Re: RRF(XS)(10): 8176797: [TESTBUG] tools/launcher/Settings.java -Xss size is too small

2017-03-16 Thread Chris Plummer
Hi Kumar, I explained the formatting changein a previous email, but I see now the formatting change I did on line 82 makes it inconsistent with similar source on line 82, so I'll change it back. thanks, Chris On 3/16/17 9:56 AM, Kumar Srinivasan wrote: Hello, I can't recall why String

Re: RFR 8175013: Add @Generated Annotation

2017-03-16 Thread Stephen Colebourne
+1, I think retention beyond SOURCE makes sense. Stephen On 16 March 2017 at 15:44, Ron Shapiro wrote: > Are there any plans to make the new @Generated annotation have CLASS > retention? We have a number of compile-time tools that would like to know > when files are

Re: RRF(XS)(10): 8176797: [TESTBUG] tools/launcher/Settings.java -Xss size is too small

2017-03-16 Thread Stanislav Smirnov
Hi Chris, changes look good, the only note, seems like formatting moved a bit -"-Xss" + stackSize + "000", "-XshowSettings", "-jar", testJar.getAbsolutePath()); +"-Xss" + (stackSize * 1024), "-XshowSettings", "-jar", testJar.getAbsolutePath()); Best

RFR[9] 8160956: Runtime.Version.compareTo/compareToIgnoreOpt problem

2017-03-16 Thread Pavel Rappo
Hello, Please review the following trivial change for [1]: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prappo/8160956/webrev.00/ The code change fixes the implementation and makes it adhere to the specification for Version comparison: /** * Compares this version to another. * ...

Re: RFR 8175013: Add @Generated Annotation

2017-03-16 Thread Lance Andersen
Hi Remi, > On Mar 16, 2017, at 10:32 AM, Remi Forax wrote: > > And deprecate the old. We will be deprecating the Java EE modules in Java SE so in a sense that is happening. It would require an MR to common annotations to deprecate the annotation in javax.annotation. and

Re: RFR 8175013: Add @Generated Annotation

2017-03-16 Thread Remi Forax
And deprecate the old. Maybe it will be done as a part of another commit given javax.annotation.Generated is in another workspace. so i've added compiler-dev, since this will be commited to langtools. Rémi - Mail original - > De: "Alan Bateman" > À: "Lance

Re: RFR 9: 8176272 : (process) ProcessHandle::onExit fails to wait for non-child process

2017-03-16 Thread Roger Riggs
Hi Thomas, Chris. I updated the webrev with Chris's suggestion and will push after tests complete. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-processhandle-onexit-8176272/index.html Thanks for the review and

Re: RFR 8175013: Add @Generated Annotation

2017-03-16 Thread Lance Andersen
I can ask Roman to include that in the update that he is working on. Best Lance > On Mar 16, 2017, at 9:51 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: > > > > On 16/03/2017 13:42, Lance Andersen wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Per the discussion [1], please find the webrev for adding a

Re: RFR 9: 8176272 : (process) ProcessHandle::onExit fails to wait for non-child process

2017-03-16 Thread Thomas Stüfe
Thanks Roger. This looks good to me now. Thomas On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Roger Riggs wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > Good idea. Though it is unlikely that the pid would be re-used between > the checks of isAlive > but that will remove any window. > > Updated webrev: >

Re: RFR 8175013: Add @Generated Annotation

2017-03-16 Thread Alan Bateman
On 16/03/2017 13:42, Lance Andersen wrote: Hi all, Per the discussion [1], please find the webrev for adding a replacement annotation for javax.annotation.Generated . It would be good to have a link from the old @Generated to the new. -Alan

RFR 8175013: Add @Generated Annotation

2017-03-16 Thread Lance Andersen
Hi all, Per the discussion [1], please find the webrev for adding a replacement annotation for javax.annotation.Generated . The CCC has been approved. The webrev can be found at: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lancea/8175013/webrev.00/

Re: RFR 9: 8176272 : (process) ProcessHandle::onExit fails to wait for non-child process

2017-03-16 Thread Chris Hegarty
> On 15 Mar 2017, at 18:53, Roger Riggs wrote: > > Hi Thomas, > > Good idea. Though it is unlikely that the pid would be re-used between the > checks of isAlive > but that will remove any window. > > Updated webrev: >

Re: RFR(XS)(10): 8175342: assert(InstanceKlass::cast(k)->is_initialized()) failed: need to increase java_thread_min_stack_allowed calculation

2017-03-16 Thread Chris Plummer
On 3/15/17 10:14 PM, David Holmes wrote: Hi Chris, On 16/03/2017 2:57 PM, Chris Plummer wrote: Hello, Please review the following: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8175342 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cjplummer/8175342/webrev.00/webrev.jdk I think you want to disable the guardpage