That looks fine.
A note on code style, though. The following form would better match the
indentation/continuation style used in the rest of this file and the 2D
code:
781 if (crossingIndices != null &&
782 crossingIndices.length > DEFAULT_INDICES_SIZE)
783 {
Changeset: 31e68419715e
Author:igor
Date: 2009-10-02 10:15 -0700
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/2d/jdk/rev/31e68419715e
6887292: memory leak in freetypeScaler.c
Reviewed-by: bae, prr
! src/share/native/sun/font/freetypeScaler.c
Phil,
Thanks for responding. I'm sorry about the lack of detail in the
stack traces: I wanted to take out the bits that were specific to our
application. Given the line numbers, I thought it would be relatively
easy to determine what the locks were.
The reason I didn't want to fix it is because
Hi Jim,
I think you are right. I think the idea is to keep the array around to
avoid massive load on the GC. And if the array needs to be grown (i.e.
very rarely), it gets shrinked back to default size. So I would go with:
> Shouldn't it be "if (array != null && array.length > DEFAULT)"?
The u
