Re: RFR (S) 8025238: nsk/jvmti/scenarios/bcinstr/BI04/bi04t002 crashed with SIGSEGV

We didn't file any bugs because I don't remember finding anything specific, other than "gosh that code is scary" and "I wish we didn't have to do this". If you find a null 'm' below and call m->print() is the method "obsolete"? Coleen On 4/30/14, 8:24 PM, Jeremy Manson wrote: Did the new b

Re: Covariant overrides on the Buffer Hierachy

Hello, I'm reminded of Professor Knuth's observation that "Premature optimization is the root of all evil." If from an API perspective the new code is preferable, I would say that should take precedence over an at most marginal performance degradation. If performance of is a high concern in

Draft JEP: JDK Core Libraries Test Stabilization

Hi all, Here's a draft JEP for stabilizing the core libraries regression test suite, that is, fixing up the spuriously failing tests. Please review and comment. Thanks! s'marks Title: JDK Core Libraries Test Stabilization Author: Stuart Marks Organization: Oracle Discussion: core-libs-dev

Re: 8035782 : sun/launcher/LauncherHelper$FXHelper loaded unnecessarily

For completeness the bugid line needs the bugid as shown, otherwise SQE will open another bug to have you fix this. -26 * @bug 8001533 8004547 +26 * @bug 8001533 8004547 8035782 other than that it looks good, I can push this with the above change. Anyone else have any concerns with this c

Re: Remove redundant calls of toString()

In general, I think Objects.requireNonNull() should often be considered idiomatic Java. If the constant-folding is to be avoided, I would prefer to see "foo".toString(); have a comment like "foo".toString(); // Avoid mandatory constant propagation -Joe On 04/27/2014 08:05 PM, Otávio

8035782 : sun/launcher/LauncherHelper$FXHelper loaded unnecessarily

Please review Launcher change and test. I've added to the Launcher test : FXLauncherTest.java The test will now check that LauncherHelper$FXHelper is not loaded for non-JavaFX class and jar files. webrev.02 contains only review suggestions from webrev.01 and the new test class. http://cr.o

Re: RFR: 8000975: (process) Merge UNIXProcess.java.bsd & UNIXProcess.java.linux (& .solaris & .aix)

On 25/04/2014 17:47, roger riggs wrote: Hi Peter, Including the test update with the updated changeset is fine. (I think Alan had some comments on the refactoring and has not yet had a chance to comment). Thanks, Roger I reviewed previous rounds and you've addressed my points so I think I'm

Re: Guidance about binary / data files for JTREG tests

On 04/30/2014 04:03 PM, Wang Weijun wrote: Florian Just curious, how do you deal with a file like this http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/file/4e7f3aac979b/test/sun/security/krb5/ktab/HighestKvno.java Is the byte array inside considered binary? We consider content problematic for wh

Re: Guidance about binary / data files for JTREG tests

Florian Just curious, how do you deal with a file like this http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/file/4e7f3aac979b/test/sun/security/krb5/ktab/HighestKvno.java Is the byte array inside considered binary? Thanks Max On Apr 30, 2014, at 18:54, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 04/29/2014 02:35

Re: Remove redundant calls of toString()

On 2014-04-30 13:08, Remi Forax wrote: On 04/29/2014 11:20 AM, Claes Redestad wrote: On 2014-04-29 09:31, Remi Forax wrote: On 04/28/2014 05:43 PM, Claes Redestad wrote: On 04/28/2014 08:57 AM, David Holmes wrote: On 28/04/2014 1:05 PM, Otávio Gonçalves de Santana wrote: In my opinion not,

Re: Remove redundant calls of toString()

On 04/29/2014 11:20 AM, Claes Redestad wrote: On 2014-04-29 09:31, Remi Forax wrote: On 04/28/2014 05:43 PM, Claes Redestad wrote: On 04/28/2014 08:57 AM, David Holmes wrote: On 28/04/2014 1:05 PM, Otávio Gonçalves de Santana wrote: In my opinion not, because Objects.requireNonNull is more re

Re: [9] Review request for 8029451: Tidy warnings cleanup for java.util package; minor changes in java.nio, java.sql

Hello Lance, oh yes, thanks! Regards, Alexander On 30.04.2014 14:39, Lance Andersen wrote: On Apr 30, 2014, at 4:23 AM, alexander stepanov > wrote: Sorry, could please anybody else review the changes? We need at least two positive responses to push

Re: Guidance about binary / data files for JTREG tests

On 04/29/2014 02:35 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: The other thing that came up previously is distributions that have a policy of not allowing binary files. If I'm not mistake then they are deleted by downstream patches, which in this case would lead to a test failure. Debian and Fedora are concerned

Re: [9] Review request for 8029451: Tidy warnings cleanup for java.util package; minor changes in java.nio, java.sql

On Apr 30, 2014, at 4:23 AM, alexander stepanov wrote: > Sorry, could please anybody else review the changes? We need at least two > positive responses to push the changes. Why? You only need one reviewer prior to FC: http://openjdk.java.net/guide/changePlanning.html#bug > > Thanks, > Al

Re: [9] Review request for 8029451: Tidy warnings cleanup for java.util package; minor changes in java.nio, java.sql

Sorry, could please anybody else review the changes? We need at least two positive responses to push the changes. Thanks, Alexander On 18.04.2014 23:47, Lance Andersen wrote: looks fine On Apr 18, 2014, at 10:04 AM, alexander stepanov > wrote: Hello