I wondered that too but since it appeared we then had a loop
that explicitly initialised all elements it should not matter.
But I supposed it was sort of an accidental byproduct of trying
different things.
-phil.
On 3/15/17, 10:57 AM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 3/14/2017 9:51 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
14 марта 2017 г., в 14:41, Philip Race <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> написал(а):
>Since this is mac specific code, I guess VS2010 will not play any
part in building this.
Ah, yes :-)
Updated fix looks OK.
Should we memset the data allocated via malloc(calloc was used before)?
Should be a good practice to do it, I guess .
Modified webrev adding memset:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psadhukhan/8176287/webrev.02/
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Epsadhukhan/8176287/webrev.02/>
This looks fine to me, but I wonder why the calloc was replaced by
malloc?
Regards
Prasanta
-phil.
On 3/14/17, 2:31 AM, Prasanta Sadhukhan wrote:
JPRT 8u build resulted in failure, so I had to modify at 2 other
places.
QuartzSurfaceData.m:287 and QuartzSurfaceData.m:328
Other things remains same.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psadhukhan/8176287/webrev.01/
Regards
Prasanta
On 3/14/2017 10:47 AM, Philip Race wrote:
On 3/13/17, 10:14 PM, Prasanta Sadhukhan wrote:
On 3/14/2017 10:24 AM, Philip Race wrote:
The problem seems to have been that you were allocating zero
bytes in the old code :
950 CGFloat* colors= (CGFloat*)calloc(0, sizeof(CGFloat)*length);
960 qsdo->gradientInfo->colordata = (CGFloat*)calloc(0,
sizeof(CGFloat)*4*length);
Regarding the new code, whilst it seems like it fixes the problem I have a nit
937 int i;
938 for (i=0; i<length; i++)
Since this code appears at the start of a block I'd expect all
compilers to be happy with
for (int i=0; i<length; i++)
is this not so ? Assuming yes, pls fix before push.
Yes, it should be ok. I got a problem with jdk8u JPRT build
(during earlier backport) citing C99 compiler failure but I
guess that was because variable was declared not at blockstart.
Will again do a JPRT and if its ok, I will push with this change.
Testing the 8u backport via JPRT is good since that will use
VS2010 which
wins the "most likely to barf" award on such an issue.
-phil
Also I wonder if the regression test we created for LGP passes
only because it is "short".
Perhaps later we can improve on that.
The fix will also need to be backported since the original fix
was backported.
ok.
So "+1" with those comments ..
Thanks
Regards
Prasanta
-phil.
On 3/12/17, 11:49 PM, Prasanta Sadhukhan wrote:
Hi All,
Please review a jck print test crash fix for jdk9. The issue
was seen with only Nimbus L&F which seems to use Linear
gradient path
and not in other L&F (such as Aqua) .
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176287
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psadhukhan/8176287/webrev.00/
Linear Gradient path collects the gradient colors and
fractions values in native obtained from Java and allocates
several arrays to store the same in setupGradient() method.
It seems even after being freed, in subsequent call to the
same gradient path routine, it may get the same allocated
pointer the next time the array is allocated causing it to
crash citing "memory being modified after freed".
Optimise setupGradient() method to allocate fewer pointer. The
JCK test works now.
Also, the JDK-8162796 testcase LinearGradientPrintingTest and
RadialGradientPrintingTest works with this optimisation.
Regards
Prasanta
