Hi, Paul
Thank you for the suggested doc adjustments. They're applied here:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bchristi/8071667/webrev.3/
TestNG test update forthcoming.
-Brent
On 3/19/15 3:09 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
Hi Brent,
The implementation looks good.
Documentation-wise i think it needs
Hi Mikael,
First of all, thank you so much for doing this!.
The changes look good.
Kumar
On 3/18/2015 4:18 PM, Mikael Vidstedt wrote:
Please review the following change which fixes a number of native
compilation warnings in the jdk.pack200 code.
Bug:
On 03/19/2015 09:29 AM, Peter Levart wrote:
On 03/19/2015 04:46 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
On 03/19/2015 02:53 PM, Kumar Srinivasan wrote:
Mikhail,
You can move the common utilitieschangeDefaultTimeZoneToUtc and
restoreDefaultTimeZoneto Utils.java.
Also I am not sure how effective the test is ?
Hi joe,
This looks fine based on your proposal.
Best
Lance
Lance Andersen| Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037
Oracle Java Engineering
1 Network Drive
Burlington, MA 01803
lance.ander...@oracle.com
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 19, 2015, at 8:12 PM, Joseph D. Darcy
Hello,
Per recent proposals
(http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk9-dev/2015-March/001991.html), please
review the change below for
JDK-8075565: Define @intermittent jtreg keyword and mark
intermittently failuring jdk tests
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8075565.0/
which
Chris / Peter,
Perhaps you could consider passing GetFields as a parameter to a static
method (identified by an annotation) and use fieldSetter to change the
fields before they're written?
That way it would be possible to not only avoid implementing readObject
or writeObject, but to check
People, please.
I have been working on this for weeks. All I am waiting on now
is a decision about where the test case should go. Can I have a
decision so we can get this in?
Thanks,
Andrew.
Hi Andrew,
Given no further advice, my inclination is move it to hotspot tests as i
suspect the scope is at least as good, if not better.
I agree we should not be blocked on this, so it's up to you :-) If left as is,
we can/should revisit.
Paul.
On Mar 19, 2015, at 10:03 AM, Andrew Haley
Hi Mandy,
I've filed an RFE for
JDK-8075571: Support tier1 and tier2 make targets
Thanks,
-Joe
On 3/19/2015 7:53 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
On 3/19/2015 11:52 AM, joe darcy wrote:
Hello,
For background, please see the tiered testing proposal over at
Seems like a good idea (but no one really does a good job on flaky tests).
Here at Google we like the word flaky.
Hello,
Two test groups were inadvertently omitted from the definition of tier 2
tests:
JDK-8075573: Add jdk_other and jdk_svc to jdk tier 2 test definition
Please review the patch below to add them in.
Thanks,
-Joe
diff -r 85c0670dbf53 test/TEST.groups
--- a/test/TEST.groupsThu
Looks fine.
Mandy
On 3/19/2015 9:16 PM, joe darcy wrote:
Hello,
Two test groups were inadvertently omitted from the definition of tier
2 tests:
JDK-8075573: Add jdk_other and jdk_svc to jdk tier 2 test definition
Please review the patch below to add them in.
Thanks,
-Joe
diff -r
Mikhail,
You can move the common utilitieschangeDefaultTimeZoneToUtc and
restoreDefaultTimeZoneto Utils.java.
Also I am not sure how effective the test is ? does it catch the issue ?
if you don't have the fix in PackerImpl and UnpackerImpl ?
Otherwise it looks good, and I can sponsor this
New code did not change API of existing X-Buffer methods. It changed
only how they are implementation. And already existing nio/Buffer tests
should test these methods already.
Regards,
Vladimir
On 3/19/15 9:33 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 19/03/2015 15:59, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
If you are
This thread has been redirected here:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/net-dev/2015-March/008937.html
where I should have sent it initially. Please respond to the net-dev
incarnation, not the core-libs-dev one.
Thanks,
Brian
On Mar 18, 2015, at 3:16 PM, Brian Burkhalter
On 19/03/2015 18:52, joe darcy wrote:
Hello,
For background, please see the tiered testing proposal over at
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk9-dev/2015-March/001991.html
The patch below adds tier1 and tier2 test definitions to the jdk
repository; webrev at
On 19/03/2015 19:10, joe darcy wrote:
Hi Alan,
On 3/19/2015 12:04 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 19/03/2015 18:52, joe darcy wrote:
Hello,
For background, please see the tiered testing proposal over at
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk9-dev/2015-March/001991.html
The patch below
Hello,
For background, please see the tiered testing proposal over at
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk9-dev/2015-March/001991.html
The patch below adds tier1 and tier2 test definitions to the jdk
repository; webrev at
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8075544.0/
One can
Hi Alan,
On 3/19/2015 12:04 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 19/03/2015 18:52, joe darcy wrote:
Hello,
For background, please see the tiered testing proposal over at
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk9-dev/2015-March/001991.html
The patch below adds tier1 and tier2 test definitions to
The current implementation of defaultReadObject sets non-primitive field
values one at a time, without first checking that all their types are
assignable. If, for example, the assignment of the last non-primitive
value fails, a CCE is thrown, and the previously set fields remain set.
The
On 19/03/2015 16:53, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
New code did not change API of existing X-Buffer methods. It changed
only how they are implementation. And already existing nio/Buffer
tests should test these methods already.
Okay, although I've made a note to check the test coverage to see that
the
On 03/19/2015 04:46 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
On 03/19/2015 02:53 PM, Kumar Srinivasan wrote:
Mikhail,
You can move the common utilitieschangeDefaultTimeZoneToUtc and
restoreDefaultTimeZoneto Utils.java.
Also I am not sure how effective the test is ? does it catch the
issue ?
if you don't
If you are asking about HeapByteBufferTest.java test put it into:
hotspot/test/compiler/intrinsics/unsafe/
Vladimir
On 3/19/15 2:03 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
People, please.
I have been working on this for weeks. All I am waiting on now
is a decision about where the test case should go. Can
On 19/03/15 15:21, Peter Levart wrote:
On 03/19/2015 11:35 AM, Peter Firmstone wrote:
Chris / Peter,
Perhaps you could consider passing GetFields as a parameter to a
static method (identified by an annotation) and use fieldSetter to
change the fields before they're written?
Interesting idea.
On 03/19/2015 11:35 AM, Peter Firmstone wrote:
Chris / Peter,
Perhaps you could consider passing GetFields as a parameter to a
static method (identified by an annotation) and use fieldSetter to
change the fields before they're written?
Or change the fields *as* they are written. It actually
On 03/19/2015 04:33 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 19/03/2015 15:59, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
If you are asking about HeapByteBufferTest.java test put it into:
hotspot/test/compiler/intrinsics/unsafe/
Vladimir
The existing tests for buffers are in jdk/test/java/nio/Buffer and would
nice to have
On 03/19/2015 04:43 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 03/19/2015 04:33 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 19/03/2015 15:59, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
If you are asking about HeapByteBufferTest.java test put it into:
hotspot/test/compiler/intrinsics/unsafe/
Vladimir
The existing tests for buffers are in
27 matches
Mail list logo
