Thank you Martin!
On 01.03.2016 21:54, Martin Buchholz wrote:
Thanks, Ivan.
135 /**
136 * This method has the same contract as ensureCapacity, but is
137 * never synchronized.
138 */
I'll update this comment to reflect the real behavior of that method.
Sincerely yours,
Ivan
This comment should be updated, since treatment of negative argument
is completely different.
Otherwise looks good.
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Ivan Gerasimov
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hello!
I added another regtest to perform some basic sanity checks wrt
StringBuilder's capacity.
In this test I we only operate on relatively small sizes.
A situation when capacity grows large is checked in a separate test, which
is ignored by default.
Do you think this fix is good to go?
BUGURL: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8149330
WEBREV: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8149330/03/webrev/
Comments, suggestions are very welcome.
Sincerely yours,
Ivan
On 23.02.2016 20:29, Martin Buchholz wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Ivan Gerasimov
<[email protected]> wrote:
While writing this, I just noticed that I actually made a mistake when
did
newCapacity < 0 check.
This wouldn't catch the overflow when the oldCapacity happens to be
Integer.MAX_VALUE (which is not possible with the current hotspot, but
may
become an issue one day).
Well done!
One interesting way that capacity may end up being Integer.MAX_VALUE
is if we switch to char[] for storage. Then in LATIN1 mode you could
store Integer.MAX_VALUE elements even without help from hotspot!
