Hi Brian, On 2018-03-30 22:42, Brian Burkhalter wrote: > Hello Raffaello, > > On Mar 30, 2018, at 9:50 AM, raffaello.giulie...@gmail.com > <mailto:raffaello.giulie...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> the topic I would like to work on is to solve the bugs described at >> https://bugs.java.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4511638 about the >> results produced by the current implementation of >> Double::toString(double). I noticed that after all these years most of >> the issues illustrated in the bug report still remain unsolved in the >> latest OpenJDK. > > The JBS [1] issue is [2]. It is currently owned by me. >
Yes, and the submission of the report was mine, far more than 10 years ago. Guys, time passes too fast... >> […] >> >> The new code also has a better specification than the current one, while >> being mostly compatible. Indeed, the current specification leaves room >> for interpretation and thus cannot ensure that an implementation >> produces consistent and unique results from one release to the next. The >> newer spec ensures a unique result. > > Any specification change would need to go through the Compatibility and > Specification Review process. [3] > OK, as you will see, as soon as the code will be uploaded, the only thing that formally affects output is the "1.0E23" versus "9.99....E22" issue. Everything else is worded in such a way to remain compatible but is simply a little bit more rigorous. >> If there is interest in the new implementation, I would be glad to >> contribute my code to the OpenJDK. > > Speaking for myself, any contribution in this area would be welcome. > Work could proceed under the extant JBS bug ID. > OK, let's to that. >> I've already signed the Oracle Contributor Agreement a few days ago. > > Processing the OCA should take at least two weeks [4]. > My wording was misleading: I already got the confirmation that my OCA application has been accepted, so I'm formally ready to contribute. >> The code currently sits in its own module, is mostly polished, >> thoroughly tested but has never been audited by people other than myself. >> >> My target is to be able to integrate it in the JDK 11 LTS release, due >> in late September 2018. > > Per the JDK 11 schedule [5] there could well be sufficient time to run > this submission through the review processes. I suggest, once your OCA > has been processed, to proceed by posting your proposed changes for > review on this mailing list. Note that in general attachments are > scrubbed, so the patch would need either to be included inline or > published as a webrev [6]. > OK, I'll take a look on how the mechanics works. I'm usually on Windows. Are there technical issues with it as far as Webrev is concerned? I mean, I could setup a Linux VM in VirtualBox if this simplifies my life, but I'd prefer continuing my main work in Win. > > [1] https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/general/JBS+Overview > [2] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-4511638 > [3] https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/csr/Main > [4] http://openjdk.java.net/contribute/ > [5] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk-dev/2018-March/000940.html > [6] http://openjdk.java.net/guide/codeReview.html
