Re: RFR: JDK-8239139 testmake fail with warning about strncpy using gcc version 8
On 2020-02-17 08:48, linzang(臧琳) wrote: Hi, May I ask help to review one tiny fix of build failure described at https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8239139 Root cause is gcc version 8 prints warning for strncpy. The fix simply replace strncpy with snprintf. Thanks! Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8239139 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lzang/8239139/webrev/ BRs, Lin Hi Lin, This is not a build issue. I'm redirecting this to core-libs. /Magnus
Re: JEP 370 - text example leads to exception
Maurizio, thanks for pointing the bug out - however I don't think I was impacted by it. I agree with you that a more complex examples might distract the audience from the main presentation points. As mentioned in one of my previous email, I finalized some examples myself: 1. One example for memory layouts creates a structure where we associate the SSN (social security number) to a credit score. The main point here is to make a mix between char arrays and integers. Code is here: https://github.com/knowledge-base-and-tutorials/java14-features/blob/master/src/main/java/com/github/kbnt/java14/fma/ForeignMemoryAccessExamples.java (method called example03SSNToCreditScore) Presentation of the case is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwXzT8T6mb8&list=PLGDP1Irs2PmWNwAwMPdyOxCqkFqB6gtp9&index=7&t=1287s 2. A more complex example (in memory off-heap analytics and memory mapped files) is the sleep analytics: Code is here: https://github.com/knowledge-base-and-tutorials/java14-features/blob/master/src/main/java/com/github/kbnt/java14/fma/SleepAnalytics.java (the class' javadoc should describe it) Presentation of the case is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwXzT8T6mb8&list=PLGDP1Irs2PmWNwAwMPdyOxCqkFqB6gtp9&index=7&t=1734s If you find anything useful in those and want to use but the license (Apache 2.0 for the code and CC-BY-SA for the videos) is in the way, let me know and I can change them to something friendlier (where e.g. no attribution is needed). Cheers! Chris T On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 6:26 PM Maurizio Cimadamore < maurizio.cimadam...@oracle.com> wrote: > > On 13/02/2020 03:39, Chris T wrote: > > No problem! Nice talk at FOSDEM, Maurizio ;-)! > > One suggestion, for future talks - when it comes to memory layouts please > construct an example that is a little bit more complex (by end of the > upcoming weekend I will publish one that can be used). I had trouble with > bit alignment when working on mine, but I will come back with the details > (no bug or anything but more clarity would be beneficial in the docs). In > your example (the Point one) the alignment is 32 but that is now always the > case... The reason I mention this as an issue is that the Java development > community is more "high-level". Believe it or not, bit alignment is not > anymore "a thing" with most of us ;-)... > > Hey Chris - on alignment there was an issue that was uncovered on > panama-dev - I think this fix should probably be ported to mainline: > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8238320 > > This might make working with layout with padding a bit more tedious than > intended, although this is probably not what you ran into. > > Re: talk suggestion - yes, more realistic examples would probably be > better - but it's always hard to strike the right balance; if the example > is more realistic it can be harder to follow, which might not be good when > you are showing new concepts. But I'll keep that in mind for the future - > after all this is a new API, and, as it's always the case, the more you > think about how to explain these concepts and the more you do it, the more > ways you find to get the message across in an optimal way. > > Thanks! > Maurizio > > > > I will also think about some API enhancements I would like to see as a > developer... > > Thanks! > Chris T > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 4:07 AM Maurizio Cimadamore < > maurizio.cimadam...@oracle.com> wrote: > >> Thanks Paul! >> >> Maurizio >> >> On 10/02/2020 17:58, Paul Sandoz wrote: >> > I modified the JEP with updated code snippets that compile against the >> latest API in JDK 14 [*]. >> >
Re: JDK-8237818: Typo in Unsafe: resposibility
Hi,
Thanks for pushing changes!
regards,
Aya Ebata
2020年2月17日(月) 11:37 Yasumasa Suenaga :
> On 2020/02/17 11:21, David Holmes wrote:
> > Hi Yasumasa,
> >
> > On 17/02/2020 11:38 am, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
> >> Hi David,
> >>
> >> On 2020/02/17 8:10, David Holmes wrote:
> >>> On 17/02/2020 12:40 am, Aya Ebata wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I sent OCA today. So it hasn't been approved yet. I'm waiting for
> approval.
> >>>
> >>> For this trivial contribution an OCA is a not required, so this can be
> sponsored before the OCA goes through processing.
> >>
> >> I didn't know that!
> >> I hope it is described in "How to contribute" page [1].
> >
> > Unfortunately no, it is covered in the by-laws [1], when distinguishing
> a Participant from a Contributor:
> >
> > "A Participant may post messages to a list, submit simple patches, and
> make other kinds of small contributions."
> >
> > "A Contributor is a Participant who has signed the Oracle Contributor
> Agreement (OCA), ..."
>
> Thanks for your information!
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Yasumasa
>
>
> > Cheers,
> > David
> >
> > [1] https://openjdk.java.net/bylaws
> >
> >
> >
> >> Anyway, I will push Aya's change to jdk/jdk.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Yasumasa
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] https://openjdk.java.net/contribute/
> >>
> >>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> David
> >>>
> regards,
> Aya Ebata
>
>
> 2020年2月16日(日) 16:49 Yasumasa Suenaga :
>
> > Hi Aya,
> >
> > It looks good to me.
> > BTW, have you signed to OCA? If so, I will sponsor you.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Yasumasa
> >
> >
> > On 2020/02/16 16:42, 江畑 彩 wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I fixed typo in s.m.Unsafe and j.i.Unsafe. The changes are below.
> >> Could you sponsor this, please.
> >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8237818
> >>
> >> regards,
> >> Aya Ebata
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> diff --git
> a/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/misc/Unsafe.java
> >> b/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/misc/Unsafe.java
> >> --- a/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/misc/Unsafe.java
> >> +++ b/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/misc/Unsafe.java
> >> @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@
> >> * Although the class and all methods are public, use of this
> class is
> >> * limited because only trusted code can obtain instances of it.
> >> *
> >> - * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
> sure
> >> + * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
> sure
> >> * arguments are checked before methods of this class are
> >> * called. While some rudimentary checks are performed on the
> input,
> >> * the checks are best effort and when performance is an
> overriding
> >> @@ -425,7 +425,7 @@
> >>/**
> >> * Create an exception reflecting that some of the input was
> > invalid
> >> *
> >> - * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
> >> + * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to
> make
> >> * sure arguments are checked before the methods are called.
> While
> >> * some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the
> checks
> >> * are best effort and when performance is an overriding
> priority,
> >> @@ -601,7 +601,7 @@
> >> * aligned for all value types. Dispose of this memory by
> calling
> >> {@link
> >> * #freeMemory}, or resize it with {@link #reallocateMemory}.
> >> *
> >> - * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
> >> + * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to
> make
> >> * sure arguments are checked before the methods are called.
> While
> >> * some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the
> checks
> >> * are best effort and when performance is an overriding
> priority,
> >> @@ -657,7 +657,7 @@
> >> * #reallocateMemory}. The address passed to this method
> may be
> > null,
> >> in
> >> * which case an allocation will be performed.
> >> *
> >> - * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
> >> + * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to
> make
> >> * sure arguments are checked before the methods are called.
> While
> >> * some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the
> checks
> >> * are best effort and when performance is an overriding
> priority,
> >> @@ -719,7 +719,7 @@
> >> * If the effective address and length are (resp.) even
> modulo 4
> > or 2,
> >> * the stores take place in units of 'int' or 'short'.
> >> *
> >> - * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
> >> + * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to
> make
> >> * sure arguments are che
Re: RFR: 8211917: (zipfs) Creating or updating a JAR file system should put the MANIFEST.MF at the start
Hello Lance, On 15/02/20 2:27 am, Lance Andersen wrote: > Hi Jaikiran, > > I think the changes to ZipFileSystem are OK. > > The test overall is good. I am going to streamline it a bit and > remove the long lines (we try to keep lines to around 80 characters). > I'll keep that in mind for future changes. Thank you for taking care of this. -Jaikiran
Re: JDK-8237818: Typo in Unsafe: resposibility
On 2020/02/17 11:21, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Yasumasa,
On 17/02/2020 11:38 am, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
Hi David,
On 2020/02/17 8:10, David Holmes wrote:
On 17/02/2020 12:40 am, Aya Ebata wrote:
Hi,
I sent OCA today. So it hasn't been approved yet. I'm waiting for approval.
For this trivial contribution an OCA is a not required, so this can be
sponsored before the OCA goes through processing.
I didn't know that!
I hope it is described in "How to contribute" page [1].
Unfortunately no, it is covered in the by-laws [1], when distinguishing a
Participant from a Contributor:
"A Participant may post messages to a list, submit simple patches, and make other
kinds of small contributions."
"A Contributor is a Participant who has signed the Oracle Contributor Agreement
(OCA), ..."
Thanks for your information!
Cheers,
Yasumasa
Cheers,
David
[1] https://openjdk.java.net/bylaws
Anyway, I will push Aya's change to jdk/jdk.
Thanks,
Yasumasa
[1] https://openjdk.java.net/contribute/
Cheers,
David
regards,
Aya Ebata
2020年2月16日(日) 16:49 Yasumasa Suenaga :
Hi Aya,
It looks good to me.
BTW, have you signed to OCA? If so, I will sponsor you.
Thanks,
Yasumasa
On 2020/02/16 16:42, 江畑 彩 wrote:
Hi,
I fixed typo in s.m.Unsafe and j.i.Unsafe. The changes are below.
Could you sponsor this, please.
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8237818
regards,
Aya Ebata
diff --git a/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/misc/Unsafe.java
b/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/misc/Unsafe.java
--- a/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/misc/Unsafe.java
+++ b/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/misc/Unsafe.java
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@
* Although the class and all methods are public, use of this class is
* limited because only trusted code can obtain instances of it.
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make sure
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make sure
* arguments are checked before methods of this class are
* called. While some rudimentary checks are performed on the input,
* the checks are best effort and when performance is an overriding
@@ -425,7 +425,7 @@
/**
* Create an exception reflecting that some of the input was
invalid
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called. While
* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the checks
* are best effort and when performance is an overriding priority,
@@ -601,7 +601,7 @@
* aligned for all value types. Dispose of this memory by calling
{@link
* #freeMemory}, or resize it with {@link #reallocateMemory}.
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called. While
* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the checks
* are best effort and when performance is an overriding priority,
@@ -657,7 +657,7 @@
* #reallocateMemory}. The address passed to this method may be
null,
in
* which case an allocation will be performed.
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called. While
* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the checks
* are best effort and when performance is an overriding priority,
@@ -719,7 +719,7 @@
* If the effective address and length are (resp.) even modulo 4
or 2,
* the stores take place in units of 'int' or 'short'.
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called. While
* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the checks
* are best effort and when performance is an overriding priority,
@@ -781,7 +781,7 @@
* If the effective addresses and length are (resp.) even modulo 4
or
2,
* the transfer takes place in units of 'int' or 'short'.
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called. While
* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the checks
* are best effort and when performance is an overriding priority,
@@ -842,7 +842,7 @@
* as discussed in {@link #getInt(Object,long)}. When the object
reference is null,
* the offset supplies an absolute base address.
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
Re: JDK-8237818: Typo in Unsafe: resposibility
Hi Yasumasa,
On 17/02/2020 11:38 am, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
Hi David,
On 2020/02/17 8:10, David Holmes wrote:
On 17/02/2020 12:40 am, Aya Ebata wrote:
Hi,
I sent OCA today. So it hasn't been approved yet. I'm waiting for
approval.
For this trivial contribution an OCA is a not required, so this can be
sponsored before the OCA goes through processing.
I didn't know that!
I hope it is described in "How to contribute" page [1].
Unfortunately no, it is covered in the by-laws [1], when distinguishing
a Participant from a Contributor:
"A Participant may post messages to a list, submit simple patches, and
make other kinds of small contributions."
"A Contributor is a Participant who has signed the Oracle Contributor
Agreement (OCA), ..."
Cheers,
David
[1] https://openjdk.java.net/bylaws
Anyway, I will push Aya's change to jdk/jdk.
Thanks,
Yasumasa
[1] https://openjdk.java.net/contribute/
Cheers,
David
regards,
Aya Ebata
2020年2月16日(日) 16:49 Yasumasa Suenaga :
Hi Aya,
It looks good to me.
BTW, have you signed to OCA? If so, I will sponsor you.
Thanks,
Yasumasa
On 2020/02/16 16:42, 江畑 彩 wrote:
Hi,
I fixed typo in s.m.Unsafe and j.i.Unsafe. The changes are below.
Could you sponsor this, please.
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8237818
regards,
Aya Ebata
diff --git a/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/misc/Unsafe.java
b/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/misc/Unsafe.java
--- a/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/misc/Unsafe.java
+++ b/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/misc/Unsafe.java
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@
* Although the class and all methods are public, use of this
class is
* limited because only trusted code can obtain instances of it.
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make sure
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make sure
* arguments are checked before methods of this class are
* called. While some rudimentary checks are performed on the
input,
* the checks are best effort and when performance is an overriding
@@ -425,7 +425,7 @@
/**
* Create an exception reflecting that some of the input was
invalid
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called.
While
* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the
checks
* are best effort and when performance is an overriding
priority,
@@ -601,7 +601,7 @@
* aligned for all value types. Dispose of this memory by
calling
{@link
* #freeMemory}, or resize it with {@link #reallocateMemory}.
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called.
While
* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the
checks
* are best effort and when performance is an overriding
priority,
@@ -657,7 +657,7 @@
* #reallocateMemory}. The address passed to this method
may be
null,
in
* which case an allocation will be performed.
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called.
While
* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the
checks
* are best effort and when performance is an overriding
priority,
@@ -719,7 +719,7 @@
* If the effective address and length are (resp.) even
modulo 4
or 2,
* the stores take place in units of 'int' or 'short'.
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called.
While
* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the
checks
* are best effort and when performance is an overriding
priority,
@@ -781,7 +781,7 @@
* If the effective addresses and length are (resp.) even
modulo 4
or
2,
* the transfer takes place in units of 'int' or 'short'.
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called.
While
* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the
checks
* are best effort and when performance is an overriding
priority,
@@ -842,7 +842,7 @@
* as discussed in {@link #getInt(Object,long)}. When the
object
reference is null,
* the offset supplies an absolute base address.
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called
Re: JDK-8237818: Typo in Unsafe: resposibility
Pushed: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/rev/f3f66f9e98ee
Yasumasa
On 2020/02/17 10:38, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
Hi David,
On 2020/02/17 8:10, David Holmes wrote:
On 17/02/2020 12:40 am, Aya Ebata wrote:
Hi,
I sent OCA today. So it hasn't been approved yet. I'm waiting for approval.
For this trivial contribution an OCA is a not required, so this can be
sponsored before the OCA goes through processing.
I didn't know that!
I hope it is described in "How to contribute" page [1].
Anyway, I will push Aya's change to jdk/jdk.
Thanks,
Yasumasa
[1] https://openjdk.java.net/contribute/
Cheers,
David
regards,
Aya Ebata
2020年2月16日(日) 16:49 Yasumasa Suenaga :
Hi Aya,
It looks good to me.
BTW, have you signed to OCA? If so, I will sponsor you.
Thanks,
Yasumasa
On 2020/02/16 16:42, 江畑 彩 wrote:
Hi,
I fixed typo in s.m.Unsafe and j.i.Unsafe. The changes are below.
Could you sponsor this, please.
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8237818
regards,
Aya Ebata
diff --git a/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/misc/Unsafe.java
b/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/misc/Unsafe.java
--- a/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/misc/Unsafe.java
+++ b/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/misc/Unsafe.java
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@
* Although the class and all methods are public, use of this class is
* limited because only trusted code can obtain instances of it.
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make sure
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make sure
* arguments are checked before methods of this class are
* called. While some rudimentary checks are performed on the input,
* the checks are best effort and when performance is an overriding
@@ -425,7 +425,7 @@
/**
* Create an exception reflecting that some of the input was
invalid
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called. While
* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the checks
* are best effort and when performance is an overriding priority,
@@ -601,7 +601,7 @@
* aligned for all value types. Dispose of this memory by calling
{@link
* #freeMemory}, or resize it with {@link #reallocateMemory}.
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called. While
* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the checks
* are best effort and when performance is an overriding priority,
@@ -657,7 +657,7 @@
* #reallocateMemory}. The address passed to this method may be
null,
in
* which case an allocation will be performed.
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called. While
* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the checks
* are best effort and when performance is an overriding priority,
@@ -719,7 +719,7 @@
* If the effective address and length are (resp.) even modulo 4
or 2,
* the stores take place in units of 'int' or 'short'.
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called. While
* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the checks
* are best effort and when performance is an overriding priority,
@@ -781,7 +781,7 @@
* If the effective addresses and length are (resp.) even modulo 4
or
2,
* the transfer takes place in units of 'int' or 'short'.
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called. While
* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the checks
* are best effort and when performance is an overriding priority,
@@ -842,7 +842,7 @@
* as discussed in {@link #getInt(Object,long)}. When the object
reference is null,
* the offset supplies an absolute base address.
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called. While
* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the checks
* are best effort and when performance is an overriding priority,
@@ -901,7 +901,7 @@
* #allocateMemory} or {@link #reallocateMemory}. The address
passed
to
* this method may be null, in which case no action is taken.
*
- * Note: It i
Re: JDK-8237818: Typo in Unsafe: resposibility
Hi David,
On 2020/02/17 8:10, David Holmes wrote:
On 17/02/2020 12:40 am, Aya Ebata wrote:
Hi,
I sent OCA today. So it hasn't been approved yet. I'm waiting for approval.
For this trivial contribution an OCA is a not required, so this can be
sponsored before the OCA goes through processing.
I didn't know that!
I hope it is described in "How to contribute" page [1].
Anyway, I will push Aya's change to jdk/jdk.
Thanks,
Yasumasa
[1] https://openjdk.java.net/contribute/
Cheers,
David
regards,
Aya Ebata
2020年2月16日(日) 16:49 Yasumasa Suenaga :
Hi Aya,
It looks good to me.
BTW, have you signed to OCA? If so, I will sponsor you.
Thanks,
Yasumasa
On 2020/02/16 16:42, 江畑 彩 wrote:
Hi,
I fixed typo in s.m.Unsafe and j.i.Unsafe. The changes are below.
Could you sponsor this, please.
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8237818
regards,
Aya Ebata
diff --git a/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/misc/Unsafe.java
b/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/misc/Unsafe.java
--- a/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/misc/Unsafe.java
+++ b/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/misc/Unsafe.java
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@
* Although the class and all methods are public, use of this class is
* limited because only trusted code can obtain instances of it.
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make sure
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make sure
* arguments are checked before methods of this class are
* called. While some rudimentary checks are performed on the input,
* the checks are best effort and when performance is an overriding
@@ -425,7 +425,7 @@
/**
* Create an exception reflecting that some of the input was
invalid
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called. While
* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the checks
* are best effort and when performance is an overriding priority,
@@ -601,7 +601,7 @@
* aligned for all value types. Dispose of this memory by calling
{@link
* #freeMemory}, or resize it with {@link #reallocateMemory}.
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called. While
* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the checks
* are best effort and when performance is an overriding priority,
@@ -657,7 +657,7 @@
* #reallocateMemory}. The address passed to this method may be
null,
in
* which case an allocation will be performed.
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called. While
* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the checks
* are best effort and when performance is an overriding priority,
@@ -719,7 +719,7 @@
* If the effective address and length are (resp.) even modulo 4
or 2,
* the stores take place in units of 'int' or 'short'.
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called. While
* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the checks
* are best effort and when performance is an overriding priority,
@@ -781,7 +781,7 @@
* If the effective addresses and length are (resp.) even modulo 4
or
2,
* the transfer takes place in units of 'int' or 'short'.
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called. While
* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the checks
* are best effort and when performance is an overriding priority,
@@ -842,7 +842,7 @@
* as discussed in {@link #getInt(Object,long)}. When the object
reference is null,
* the offset supplies an absolute base address.
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called. While
* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the checks
* are best effort and when performance is an overriding priority,
@@ -901,7 +901,7 @@
* #allocateMemory} or {@link #reallocateMemory}. The address
passed
to
* this method may be null, in which case no action is taken.
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
* sure
Re: JDK-8237818: Typo in Unsafe: resposibility
On 17/02/2020 12:40 am, Aya Ebata wrote:
Hi,
I sent OCA today. So it hasn't been approved yet. I'm waiting for approval.
For this trivial contribution an OCA is a not required, so this can be
sponsored before the OCA goes through processing.
Cheers,
David
regards,
Aya Ebata
2020年2月16日(日) 16:49 Yasumasa Suenaga :
Hi Aya,
It looks good to me.
BTW, have you signed to OCA? If so, I will sponsor you.
Thanks,
Yasumasa
On 2020/02/16 16:42, 江畑 彩 wrote:
Hi,
I fixed typo in s.m.Unsafe and j.i.Unsafe. The changes are below.
Could you sponsor this, please.
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8237818
regards,
Aya Ebata
diff --git a/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/misc/Unsafe.java
b/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/misc/Unsafe.java
--- a/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/misc/Unsafe.java
+++ b/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/misc/Unsafe.java
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@
* Although the class and all methods are public, use of this class is
* limited because only trusted code can obtain instances of it.
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make sure
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make sure
* arguments are checked before methods of this class are
* called. While some rudimentary checks are performed on the input,
* the checks are best effort and when performance is an overriding
@@ -425,7 +425,7 @@
/**
* Create an exception reflecting that some of the input was
invalid
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called. While
* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the checks
* are best effort and when performance is an overriding priority,
@@ -601,7 +601,7 @@
* aligned for all value types. Dispose of this memory by calling
{@link
* #freeMemory}, or resize it with {@link #reallocateMemory}.
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called. While
* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the checks
* are best effort and when performance is an overriding priority,
@@ -657,7 +657,7 @@
* #reallocateMemory}. The address passed to this method may be
null,
in
* which case an allocation will be performed.
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called. While
* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the checks
* are best effort and when performance is an overriding priority,
@@ -719,7 +719,7 @@
* If the effective address and length are (resp.) even modulo 4
or 2,
* the stores take place in units of 'int' or 'short'.
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called. While
* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the checks
* are best effort and when performance is an overriding priority,
@@ -781,7 +781,7 @@
* If the effective addresses and length are (resp.) even modulo 4
or
2,
* the transfer takes place in units of 'int' or 'short'.
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called. While
* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the checks
* are best effort and when performance is an overriding priority,
@@ -842,7 +842,7 @@
* as discussed in {@link #getInt(Object,long)}. When the object
reference is null,
* the offset supplies an absolute base address.
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called. While
* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the checks
* are best effort and when performance is an overriding priority,
@@ -901,7 +901,7 @@
* #allocateMemory} or {@link #reallocateMemory}. The address
passed
to
* this method may be null, in which case no action is taken.
*
- * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
+ * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called. While
* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the checks
* are best effort and when performance is an overriding priority,
diff --git a/src/jdk.unsupported/s
Re: [PATCH] Enhancement proposal for java.util.StringJoiner
Hello, I've complitely reworked the patch according to investigation in [1]. 1) usage of JavaLangAccess allows to rid reflection completely and access package-private String.isLatin1 via SharedSecrets only, so no black wizardry any more 2) now we have only a few cases with noticeable regeression (in statistics I've marked corresponding rows with exclamation marks) 3) usage of non-copying constructor of String in StringLatin1.newString(byte[]) allows to reduce memory consumption significantly 4) there still could be a patological case when we join an array or collection with lots of latin Strings and 1 non-latin String as the last element. In this case we fall back to char[] but waste some time to latiness check. 5) current implementataion is almost regresion-free for non-latin Strings both in terms of time and memory 6) in general proposed changes are trivial The benchmarking results can be found below, I've used benchmark [2] P. S. I've added Martin as according to the first comment [1] he is responsible for this optimization With best regards, Sergey Tsypanov 1. https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8148937 2. https://github.com/stsypanov/strings/blob/master/src/jmh/java/tsypanov/strings/join/StringJoinerBenchmark.java https://github.com/stsypanov/strings/blob/master/src/main/java/tsypanov/strings/source/string/Joiner.java Benchmark (count) (latin) (length) Original Error Patched Error Units stringJoiner 1 true 1 27.7 ± 1.222.1 ± 0.2 ns/op stringJoiner 1 true 5 27.7 ± 0.122.3 ± 0.0 ns/op stringJoiner 1 true10 29.0 ± 0.623.2 ± 0.0 ns/op stringJoiner 1 true 100 51.4 ± 0.131.4 ± 0.1 ns/op stringJoiner 5 true 1 71.1 ± 0.464.9 ± 0.3 ns/op stringJoiner 5 true 5 79.5 ± 0.365.5 ± 0.3 ns/op stringJoiner 5 true10 81.2 ± 0.367.7 ± 0.2 ns/op stringJoiner 5 true 100 150.0 ± 0.486.5 ± 0.5 ns/op stringJoiner10 true 1 145.5 ± 0.7 142.5 ± 0.4 ns/op stringJoiner10 true 5 160.0 ± 0.8 145.6 ± 0.2 ns/op stringJoiner10 true10 165.6 ± 0.4 150.8 ± 0.3 ns/op stringJoiner10 true 100 340.2 ± 1.2 189.3 ± 0.4 ns/op stringJoiner 100 true 1 1114.3 ± 15.9 1372.7 ± 53.0 ns/op ! stringJoiner 100 true 5 1184.2 ± 18.5 1385.9 ± 56.0 ns/op ! stringJoiner 100 true10 1345.8 ± 13.9 1369.0 ± 2.7 ns/op ! stringJoiner 100 true 100 3156.1 ± 19.1 1844.1 ± 4.1 ns/op stringJoiner 1false 1 33.5 ± 0.434.9 ± 0.1 ns/op stringJoiner 1false 5 33.3 ± 0.335.9 ± 0.1 ns/op stringJoiner 1false10 33.8 ± 0.135.9 ± 0.1 ns/op stringJoiner 1false 100 57.5 ± 0.258.3 ± 0.1 ns/op stringJoiner 5false 1 82.9 ± 0.582.0 ± 0.8 ns/op stringJoiner 5false 5 86.0 ± 0.584.8 ± 0.9 ns/op stringJoiner 5false10 96.9 ± 0.592.5 ± 0.6 ns/op stringJoiner 5false 100 224.2 ± 0.6 226.7 ± 0.7 ns/op stringJoiner10false 1 165.7 ± 0.9 167.6 ± 3.2 ns/op stringJoiner10false 5 178.4 ± 0.7 179.6 ± 2.1 ns/op stringJoiner10false10 191.7 ± 0.9 195.9 ± 2.2 ns/op stringJoiner10false 100 534.4 ± 1.4 534.5 ± 1.3 ns/op stringJoiner 100false 1 1435.9 ± 9.5 1428.2 ± 3.2 ns/op stringJoiner 100false 5 1618.5 ± 14.3 1595.2 ± 3.7 ns/op stringJoiner 100false10 1898.1 ± 9.4 1860.8 ± 4.7 ns/op stringJoiner 100false 100 4247.4 ± 60.7 4150.1 ± 9.1 ns/op stringJoiner
Re: JDK-8237818: Typo in Unsafe: resposibility
Hi,
I sent OCA today. So it hasn't been approved yet. I'm waiting for approval.
regards,
Aya Ebata
2020年2月16日(日) 16:49 Yasumasa Suenaga :
> Hi Aya,
>
> It looks good to me.
> BTW, have you signed to OCA? If so, I will sponsor you.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Yasumasa
>
>
> On 2020/02/16 16:42, 江畑 彩 wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I fixed typo in s.m.Unsafe and j.i.Unsafe. The changes are below.
> > Could you sponsor this, please.
> > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8237818
> >
> > regards,
> > Aya Ebata
> >
> >
> >
> > diff --git a/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/misc/Unsafe.java
> > b/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/misc/Unsafe.java
> > --- a/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/misc/Unsafe.java
> > +++ b/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/misc/Unsafe.java
> > @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@
> >* Although the class and all methods are public, use of this class is
> >* limited because only trusted code can obtain instances of it.
> >*
> > - * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make sure
> > + * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make sure
> >* arguments are checked before methods of this class are
> >* called. While some rudimentary checks are performed on the input,
> >* the checks are best effort and when performance is an overriding
> > @@ -425,7 +425,7 @@
> > /**
> >* Create an exception reflecting that some of the input was
> invalid
> >*
> > - * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
> > + * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
> >* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called. While
> >* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the checks
> >* are best effort and when performance is an overriding priority,
> > @@ -601,7 +601,7 @@
> >* aligned for all value types. Dispose of this memory by calling
> > {@link
> >* #freeMemory}, or resize it with {@link #reallocateMemory}.
> >*
> > - * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
> > + * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
> >* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called. While
> >* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the checks
> >* are best effort and when performance is an overriding priority,
> > @@ -657,7 +657,7 @@
> >* #reallocateMemory}. The address passed to this method may be
> null,
> > in
> >* which case an allocation will be performed.
> >*
> > - * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
> > + * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
> >* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called. While
> >* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the checks
> >* are best effort and when performance is an overriding priority,
> > @@ -719,7 +719,7 @@
> >* If the effective address and length are (resp.) even modulo 4
> or 2,
> >* the stores take place in units of 'int' or 'short'.
> >*
> > - * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
> > + * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
> >* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called. While
> >* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the checks
> >* are best effort and when performance is an overriding priority,
> > @@ -781,7 +781,7 @@
> >* If the effective addresses and length are (resp.) even modulo 4
> or
> > 2,
> >* the transfer takes place in units of 'int' or 'short'.
> >*
> > - * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
> > + * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
> >* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called. While
> >* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the checks
> >* are best effort and when performance is an overriding priority,
> > @@ -842,7 +842,7 @@
> >* as discussed in {@link #getInt(Object,long)}. When the object
> > reference is null,
> >* the offset supplies an absolute base address.
> >*
> > - * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
> > + * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
> >* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called. While
> >* some rudimentary checks are performed on the input, the checks
> >* are best effort and when performance is an overriding priority,
> > @@ -901,7 +901,7 @@
> >* #allocateMemory} or {@link #reallocateMemory}. The address
> passed
> > to
> >* this method may be null, in which case no action is taken.
> >*
> > - * Note: It is the resposibility of the caller to make
> > + * Note: It is the responsibility of the caller to make
> >* sure arguments are checked before the methods are called. While
> >* some rudimentary checks are
Re: 8202469 / 8202473: Correct type annotation resolution for class type variables
Hi Rafael, Thanks for reaching out and reminding me of this! I managed to find some time to look into 8202469 during the weekend. By swapping place of the TVars in the test I managed to isolate this without depending on 8202473, take a look at my hacky copy-paste update to your test at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jfranck/8202469/ . The comment on lines 269-276 needs to be updated. Perhaps include a table with the start index depending of the type? Also referencing JVMLS 4.4 for the structure of the bound might be instructive for future readers. My current understanding is that there are two problems with the code on (the original) lines 277-287: 1) Type Variables should have index 0 while getting index 1 due to lines 279-280. 2) Bounds that are instances of ParameterizedType always gets index 1 but if the first bound represents a Class type the index should be 0. Does this make sense? Can you make the if-switches positive? I find my original code with the negative tests hard to read and the update doesn't help. Also can you expand the test to cover the different kinds of bounds mentioned in 4.4 and also test Type Variables on methods, I suspect javac treats method (and constructor) tvars similarly but there have been bugs ... TL;DR please update the webrev with: - Split out test and fix for 8202469 - More test coverage of different kinds of bounds - Test for method tvars - See if you can rework the logic to have (mostly) positive tests in if switch Thanks again for looking into this, I'll start looking into 8202473, I think the fix for that one opens up a bigger rework of the code which is why I want to separate the two. cheers /Joel On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 10:12 PM Rafael Winterhalter wrote: > Hi, > > appologies for the delay, I only managed to get my patched up to webrev > today (http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~winterhalter/). It's three patches in > total now, for the third one I could not add a test case, it would require > to compile an annotation property against an enumeration type and load it > against another class where the enumeration was turned into an annotation. > I struggled a bit with jtreg to make it work but I cannot see myself > complete this in a meaningful amount of time. However, I hope that the > patch and the error it solves are straightforward to see. > > I only submitted a patch for 8202469. 8202473 is solved by it. It's two > bugs but they are a symptom of the same oversight. > > I hope this helps you to review it but let me know if you have any > questions or if I should further adjust my patch. > > Best regards, Rafael > > Am Fr., 2. Aug. 2019 um 12:18 Uhr schrieb Rafael Winterhalter < > rafael@gmail.com>: > >> Thanks Daniel, >> I did some work on Glassfish a bunch of years ago, I had no idea. >> I will try to split up the changes (I fixed another bug in annotation >> processing yesterday) and upload everything there. >> Best regards, Rafael >> >> Am Fr., 2. Aug. 2019 um 11:59 Uhr schrieb Daniel Fuchs < >> daniel.fu...@oracle.com>: >> >>> Hi Rafael, >>> >>> On 02/08/2019 09:00, Joel Borggrén-Franck wrote: >>> > I can host webrevs for you on cr to make it easier for other >>> reviewers, if >>> > you also send me the patches or webrefs off-list to get around the >>> > attachment stripping I can upload them to cr. >>> >>> I see that you are a JDK project author, so you already own a page >>> on cr (http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~winterhalter/) where you can >>> upload webrevs (e.g. using `scp` as in: >>> $ scp -r webrev-N.01 winterhal...@cr.openjdk.java.net: ) >>> >>> best regards and welcome! >>> >>> -- daniel >>> >>
