OK, sounds reasonable!
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 6:32 PM Ivan Gerasimov
wrote:
> Thank you Martin for review!
>
> On 5/3/19 6:05 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>
> Test should check that Pattern.compile does not return normally, e.g. by
> throwing AssertionError. Otherwise LGTM.
>
> Well. I think,
Thank you Martin for review!
On 5/3/19 6:05 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
Test should check that Pattern.compile does not return normally, e.g.
by throwing AssertionError. Otherwise LGTM.
Well. I think, that OOM in this scenario is a limitation of the current
implementation.
If the
Test should check that Pattern.compile does not return normally, e.g. by
throwing AssertionError. Otherwise LGTM.
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 5:54 PM Ivan Gerasimov
wrote:
> Hello!
>
> A private method Pattern. RemoveQEQuoting() contains calculation of an
> array size, which can result in numeric
Hello!
A private method Pattern. RemoveQEQuoting() contains calculation of an
array size, which can result in numeric overflow, and cause a confusing
NegativeArraySizeException.
Would you please help review the fix?
Please note, that expressions `j + 2` and `pLen - i` cannot overflow
+1
On 03/05/2019 11:21, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Phil,
Looks good, thanks for the cleanup.
Roger
On 05/03/2019 02:08 PM, Phil Race wrote:
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8222819
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8222819/
After fixing
On 01/05/2019 21:48, Joe Darcy wrote:
I'd prefer to push a version without the explicit map variable, but
the max line length is slightly longer:
*
- * MapString,String env = new HashMap();
- * env.put("capacity", "16G");
- * env.put("blockSize", "4k");
- *
Semyon:
This webrev also includes your fix for 8223038
(http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssadetsky/8223038/).
Both fixes look good, but should wait till after JEP is targeted.
/Andy
On 5/3/2019 3:08 PM, semyon.sadet...@oracle.com wrote:
bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8223318
bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8223318
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssadetsky/8223318/webrev.00/
The fix adds reading of --mac-bundle-name option to the application
image builder.
--Semyon
looks good.
/Andy
On 5/3/2019 2:08 PM, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
Here is the webrev to document the threading limitation:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8223321
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8223321/webrev.00/
Once reviewed, Andy can include this in the next version of the webrev
OK, thanks.
-- Kevin
On 5/3/2019 11:31 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Kevin,
I'm fine with the disclaimer; undefined behavior is fine.
Thanks, Roger
p.s. synchronizing the run method would prevent filing of issues when
someone does it anyway, keeping the noise to a minimum.
On 05/03/2019 02:08
Looks good to me. We can live with this limitation for a little while, since
there aren't exactly thousands of users who will need to run this
concurrently.
And concurrent use of the command line tool - ie using separate VMs
works fine - per Kevin.
But we do need to get to it.
-phil.
On
Hi Kevin,
I'm fine with the disclaimer; undefined behavior is fine.
Thanks, Roger
p.s. synchronizing the run method would prevent filing of issues when
someone does it anyway, keeping the noise to a minimum.
On 05/03/2019 02:08 PM, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
Here is the webrev to document the
Hi Phil,
Looks good, thanks for the cleanup.
Roger
On 05/03/2019 02:08 PM, Phil Race wrote:
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8222819
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8222819/
After fixing https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8130266 the code
in the launcher which
Here is the webrev to document the threading limitation:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8223321
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8223321/webrev.00/
Once reviewed, Andy can include this in the next version of the webrev
(and we'll update the CSR).
-- Kevin
On 5/3/2019 10:23 AM,
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8222819
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8222819/
After fixing https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8130266 the code
in the launcher which sets the java.awt.headless property on MacOS is
defunct
since the java.desktop module figures it
Andy,
I've created the following CRs to track the findings:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8223325
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8223323
- Alexey
On 5/2/2019 5:08 PM, Andy Herrick wrote:
Alexey:
Please file Bugs for these two issues.
/Andy
On 5/2/2019 1:49 PM, Alexey
Thanks for your feedback. I filed two issues [1][2] for the thread
concurrency issue. The first one needs to be solved for JDK 13, which is
to either document the existing limitation (which is probably what we'll
do) or serialize access by synchronizing on the JPackageToolProvider
class (or,
Thanks for your feedback. I filed two issues [1][2] for the thread
concurrency issue. The first one needs to be solved for JDK 13, which is
to either document the existing limitation (which is probably what we'll
do) or serialize access by synchronizing on the JPackageToolProvider
class (or,
Hi Scott,
I agree this a good option. Though we still need to create some custom
wix source code for shortcuts, so we can't get rid completely of Java
code generating wix sources.
- Alexey
On 5/2/2019 8:54 PM, Scott Palmer wrote:
Ideally the wix code should be generated by running the
I'm not a reviewer, but strongly support this change. Simpler is better.
Thanks!
With best regards,
Tagir Valeev.
пт, 3 мая 2019 г., 7:37 Stuart Marks :
> Hi all,
>
> Please review these spec and implementation changes to remove the
> "optimization"
> to AbstractSet.removeAll. Briefly, this
Hi Alexander,
I'll file cleanup issues (or add to existing bugs) for the rest.
Thanks.
-- Kevin
On 5/2/2019 6:33 PM, Alexander Matveev wrote:
Hi Kevin,
See below.
On 5/2/2019 5:38 PM, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
Here are a few follow-on comments. As with my earlier comments, none
of these
On 02/05/2019 22:42, Joe Darcy wrote:
:
I don't think code should be added to Objects.equals itself to guard
against this case. Instead, I think the operational semantics of the
implementation should be made explicit in the specification.
I agree, I think the proposed clarification and the
22 matches
Mail list logo
