The patch has been updated as suggested and the existing test has been modified to verify the changes:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8169725/webrev.02/ Thanks, Brian On Dec 7, 2016, at 5:09 PM, Brian Burkhalter <brian.burkhal...@oracle.com> wrote: > I was expecting that; will update. > > Thanks, > > Brian > > On Dec 7, 2016, at 5:03 PM, Philip Race <philip.r...@oracle.com> wrote: > >> Looks OK except for the same question about using 0xFFFFFFFF. >> >> -phil. >> >> On 12/6/16, 12:31 PM, Brian Burkhalter wrote: >>> Continuing from thread [1]. >>> >>> Pursuant to comments from the CCC, the patch [2] has been updated. The >>> changes with respect to the previous version of the patch [3] are to >>> clarify the specification of TIFFField(TIFFTag,long) in terms of the >>> constructor’s description and the exceptions it throws, and to add an >>> exception for the case of value>= 4294967296, i.e., above the range of a >>> 32-bit unsigned int. >>> >>> Once this patch is approved the CCC request may be updated. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Brian >>> >>> [1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2016-November/007963.html >>> [2] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8169725/webrev.01/ >>> [3] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8169725/webrev.00/ >>> >>> On Nov 23, 2016, at 8:03 AM, Philip Race<philip.r...@oracle.com> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> -phil >
