On 2018-04-18 19:42, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote:
2018/4/18 10:27:36 -0700, e...@zusammenkunft.net:
Hello, I would put it on a standalone Git repo on one of the public
hosting sites lile.Github, especially for a first discussion
(especially good if added JMH comparisions). I would not expect
would you please review the following patch?
bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8201469
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mli/8201469/webrev.00/
( For othervm.dirs property, I just reformat it. )
In my test result, with jtreg option "-concurrency:4", after apply the
patch, tier3 tests o
OK thanks for the update. It seems odd to me - C99 has been around
for a pretty long time - but, as long as the change goes in, I'm
happy. Thanks!
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:13 AM, Xueming Shen wrote:
> David,
>
> webrev has been updated to address the compiler error on solaris-sparcv9.
> The C
On 19/04/2018 13:16, David Lloyd wrote:
OK thanks for the update. It seems odd to me - C99 has been around
for a pretty long time - but, as long as the change goes in, I'm
happy. Thanks!
I think this is about the compiler options that are used by the build,
specifically when compiling JNI cod
Hi,
New webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~goetz/wr18/8201593-lenInAIOOB/02/
I admit my wording is not optimal.
It's because I extracted this change from a bigger one. Our message reads like
this:
Object [] oa1 = new Object[10]
oa1[12]
"ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException while trying to load from i
On 04/18/2018 03:30 PM, Roger Riggs wrote:
> Which roughly reads as:
>
> Index %d out-of-bounds for length %d
"out-of-bounds" shouldn't be hyphenated because it's not a compound
adjective. Besides that, it's unnecessary because you already know
its an ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException.
I
Hi David,
A private constructor that is apparently unused (because it is used
implicitly by code
buried in HotSpot) is going to raise questions.
Strictly speaking the new constructor is not necessary since the native
code can
compose the full message and use the existing constructor.
I'd rec
Hi,
I tried to fix bug 6202130 about manifest utf support and come up now
with a test as suggested in the bug's comments that shows that utf
charset actually works before removing the comments from the code.
When I wanted to remove the XXX comments about utf it occurred to me
that version at
Hi Chris,
On 16/04/18 9:33 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Jaikiran,
On 13/04/18 16:29, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
Hi Chris,
Thank you creating that JIRA.
If the fix involves just updating the javadoc, is this something that
youwould like me to contribute as a patch? I have a signed and
approved OCA, bu
On 20/04/2018 05:37, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
:
The change will require a CSR, but I can do that on your
behalf.
Thank you, can you please file one (if it can be done before a patch
is submitted)? I'm in the process of creating the patch and will send
it out to this list soon.
Best to send it to
On 20/04/18 11:24 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 20/04/2018 05:37, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
I'm in the process of creating the patch and will send it out to
this list soon.
Best to send it to the net-dev list as this is where the java.net API
is mostly maintained.
Will do. Thank you.
-Jaikiran
Hi Roger,
I removed the constructor im my latest webrev.
Best regards,
Goetz.
> -Original Message-
> From: hotspot-runtime-dev [mailto:hotspot-runtime-dev-
> boun...@openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Roger Riggs
> Sent: Donnerstag, 19. April 2018 19:21
> To: David Holmes ; core-libs-
> d
12 matches
Mail list logo
