Hi Ivan,
On 17/03/2014 8:37 AM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Here is yet another iteration of the fix:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8014066/3/webrev/
1)
The condition 'fromIndex = size()' is removed from the spec.
I prefer removing it rather than replacing it with 'fromIndex size()'
for two
On Mar 17, 2014, at 9:57 PM, Ulf Zibis ulf.zi...@cosoco.de wrote:
Am 17.03.2014 17:08, schrieb mark.reinh...@oracle.com:
2014/3/17 1:41 -0700, paul.san...@oracle.com:
On Mar 15, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Ulf Zibis ulf.zi...@cosoco.de wrote:
...
I more like the given style with less spaces:
3854
On Mar 17, 2014, at 6:21 PM, Kumar Srinivasan kumar.x.sriniva...@oracle.com
wrote:
Hello,
Please review fix for adding back @SuppressWarnings tag
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ksrini/8037529/webrev.0/
removed inadvertently with the push for
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ksrini/8037221/
On 2014-03-18 02:19, Andrew Hughes wrote:
Do we need more than just the following three alternatives?
#1. No debugging information at all.
#2. Debugging information left in the original binaries.
#3. Debugging information stripped from the binaries and zipped in separate
files.
It sounds to
- Original Message -
On 2014-03-18 02:19, Andrew Hughes wrote:
Do we need more than just the following three alternatives?
#1. No debugging information at all.
#2. Debugging information left in the original binaries.
#3. Debugging information stripped from the binaries and
On 3/17/14 7:19 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
- Original Message -
On 3/3/14 2:49 PM, Omair Majid wrote:
* David Holmes david.hol...@oracle.com [2014-02-28 18:48]:
There are three pieces to all of this:
1. Generating debug symbols in the binaries (via gcc -g or whatever)
2. Generating
- Original Message -
On 3/17/14 7:19 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
- Original Message -
On 3/3/14 2:49 PM, Omair Majid wrote:
* David Holmes david.hol...@oracle.com [2014-02-28 18:48]:
There are three pieces to all of this:
1. Generating debug symbols in the binaries (via
Hello!
Would you please take a look at the next iteration of webrev?
I incorporated the last suggestions in it.
When I first proposed a simple typo fix, I didn't think it's going to
cause such a big discussion :)
Assuming this last iteration is OK, should the next step be a CCC request?
Sorry, here's the link:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8014066/4/webrev/
On 18.03.2014 22:28, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Hello!
Would you please take a look at the next iteration of webrev?
I incorporated the last suggestions in it.
When I first proposed a simple typo fix, I didn't think
Bhavesh,
Can you take care of this ? Create a forward port bug to 9 and then do
the push for it.
Thanks,
Michel
Alan Bateman wrote:
On 17/03/2014 16:28, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Hi guys,
While playing with JDK 9 javadoc command I noticed that it
seems to treat all single method interfaces as
On Mar 14, 2014, at 4:28 AM, Vladimir Ivanov vladimir.x.iva...@oracle.com
wrote:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vlivanov/8037210/webrev.00/
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8037210
953 lines changed: 425 ins; 217 del; 311 mod
This is a massive cleanup of JSR292 code to replace
On 3/18/14 12:22 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
- Original Message -
On 3/17/14 7:19 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
- Original Message -
On 3/3/14 2:49 PM, Omair Majid wrote:
* David Holmes david.hol...@oracle.com [2014-02-28 18:48]:
There are three pieces to all of this:
1. Generating
On Mar 18, 2014, at 1:36 PM, Christian Thalinger
christian.thalin...@oracle.com wrote:
Why are we not using an Enum instead of an untyped byte?
Byte is moderately typed, in the sense (which I rely on during development)
that you can't assign an int or char to a byte w/o a cast.
That's why it
Am 18.03.2014 19:28, schrieb Ivan Gerasimov:
Assuming this last iteration is OK, should the next step be a CCC request?
Do you mean? :
/*
* ...
+ * It is assumed that fromIndex = toIndex, otherwise the behaviour of
this method is undefined.
* ...
- *
Looks good.
On Mar 18 2014, at 11:37 , Ivan Gerasimov ivan.gerasi...@oracle.com wrote:
Sorry, here's the link:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8014066/4/webrev/
On 18.03.2014 22:28, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Hello!
Would you please take a look at the next iteration of webrev?
I
Am 18.03.2014 23:17, schrieb Martin Buchholz:
modCount is an imprecise concurrent modification mechanism. It doesn't have to be kept
transactionally correct.
Thanks, yes I know.
But does it hurt to make it more precise?
See this as a concept for a RFE.
-Ulf
On Mar 18, 2014, at 2:35 PM, John Rose john.r.r...@oracle.com wrote:
On Mar 18, 2014, at 1:36 PM, Christian Thalinger
christian.thalin...@oracle.com wrote:
Why are we not using an Enum instead of an untyped byte?
Byte is moderately typed, in the sense (which I rely on during
17 matches
Mail list logo
