[Ping] RFR: 8176894 Provide specialized implementation for default methods putIfAbsent, computeIfAbsent, computeIfPresent, compute, merge in TreeMap

Hello everybody! A gentle reminder: please review the changeset and the CSR. Thanks! With best regards, Tagir Valeev On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 5:58 PM Tagir Valeev wrote: > Hello! > > Please review the following patch: > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tvaleev/webrev/8176894/r2/ >

Re: [PATCH] JDK-8228580 DnsClient TCP socket timeout

Hi Milan, Your test need the corresponding "TcpTimeout.dns" file to run successfully, I believe you forgot to add with your patch. please check the existing tests in the same folder if you need any additional information. Thanks, Vyom On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 10:48 PM Milan Mimica wrote: > Hi

Re: 8229845: Decrease memory consumption of BigInteger.toString()

Hi Brian! A couple of comments 1) 3974 if (signum == 0) { 3975 buf.append('0'); 3976 return; 3977 } Shouldn't it be padded with zeroes, if digits > 0? If I'm not mistaken, it could happen if result[1] at the end of toString() happens to be ZERO. It

RFR [14/java.xml] 8229388: ErrorHandler and ContentHandler contain ambiguous/unfinished specification

Please review a specification claraficaiton/doc-only change to ErrorHandler and ContentHandler. JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8229388 CSR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8229738 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk14/8229388/webrev/ Thanks, Joe

Re: 8229845: Decrease memory consumption of BigInteger.toString()

Hello, > On Aug 20, 2019, at 4:31 PM, Brian Burkhalter > wrote: > >> On Aug 20, 2019, at 2:45 PM, Ivan Gerasimov > > wrote: >> >> Would it make sense to add an argument `digits` to smallToString (like the >> same named argument of toString, the minimum

Re: RFR 8229958: Provider.getService() scalability issue for legacy algorithms and message digests

Thanks for the suggestion! I've submitted a new CR to security-dev. The new CR is at https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~xliu/8229958/01/webrev/ I've run all tier-1 tests again with the change. Letu On 8/21/19, 12:39 AM, "Alan Bateman" wrote: On 21/08/2019 08:32, Yang, Letu wrote: > Hi

Re: jdk-14-jpackage+1-33 on jdk.java.net

We believe that we have addressed most of the issues, especially those affecting the generated Linux packages, both .deb and .rpm. There is one open issue around the naming of the Debian packages that we will address in the next EA release. See JDK-8228660 [1] for more information. We would

jdk-14-jpackage+1-33 on jdk.java.net

The next EA build of JPackage is available at https://jdk.java.net/jpackage/ This build ( jdk-14-jpackage+1-33 ) (2019/8/20) is the next early access release based on JDK-14 This release contains fixes to the following issues: JDK-8229788 Error dialog displays with DLL issue when

Re: RFR 8207814: (proxy) upgrade the proxy class generator

Hi Mandy, I updated the ProxyPerf and included numbers from recent runs and will push the changeset. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-upgrade-proxy-gen-8207814/ Thanks, Roger On 8/20/19 8:42 PM, Mandy Chung wrote: Hi Roger, The new test case looks good.  Thanks for adding that.

Re: RFR: 8229485: Add decrementExact(), incrementExact(), and negateExact() to java.lang.StrictMath

Hi Julia! This looks good to me. For all the other methods from StrictMath that have a corresponding method in Math there is a link in javadoc `@see Math#xxx`. I think, it makes sense to provide such links for all new methods for consistency. With kind regards, Ivan On 8/21/19 6:29 AM,

Re: flatMap still prevents short circuiting when using .iterator()

Created an issue to track this: JDK-8229983 flatMap still prevents short circuiting when using .iterator() Regards, Roger On 8/20/19 4:55 AM, Stephen Buergler wrote: Oops thanks. So I think the issue is that StreamSpliterators.java has this

Re: [PATCH] JDK-8228580 DnsClient TCP socket timeout

Hi Pavel Updated the patch with the jtreg test. The test hangs when the fix is not applied. I don't know why main/timeout=20 does not work for me. On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 00:08, Pavel Rappo wrote: > > Thanks for doing that. I've only skimmed through the patch and I’d recommend > that no matter

Re: RFR: 8229485: Add decrementExact(), incrementExact(), and negateExact() to java.lang.StrictMath

Hi Julia, +1 Brian > On Aug 21, 2019, at 8:49 AM, Roger Riggs wrote: > > Hi Julia, > > Looks good. > > Thanks, Roger > > On 8/21/19 9:29 AM, Julia Boes wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Thanks for the review. I incorporated the following changes: >> >> - added "@since 14" tag >> >> - removed test

Re: RFR: 8229485: Add decrementExact(), incrementExact(), and negateExact() to java.lang.StrictMath

Hi Julia, Looks good. Thanks, Roger On 8/21/19 9:29 AM, Julia Boes wrote: Hi all, Thanks for the review. I incorporated the following changes: - added "@since 14" tag - removed test code from the CSR specification - minor fixes in StrictMath.java, ExactArithTests.java as per Ivan's

Re: RFR: 8229485: Add decrementExact(), incrementExact(), and negateExact() to java.lang.StrictMath

Hi all, Thanks for the review. I incorporated the following changes: - added "@since 14" tag - removed test code from the CSR specification - minor fixes in StrictMath.java, ExactArithTests.java as per Ivan's comments. The related fix in Math.java is included in this CSR:

Re: RFR(XS): 8229912: [TESTBUG] java/net/Socks/SocksIPv6Test fails without IPv6

Hi Nick, Thanks for finding this issue and proposing a fix. I agree with Alan that throwing SkipException would be a better choice, we have started using that more frequently recently. In addition jdk.test.lib.NetworkConfiguration [1] provides a static printSystemConfiguration method that could

Re: RFR 8229958: Provider.getService() scalability issue for legacy algorithms and message digests

On 21/08/2019 08:32, Yang, Letu wrote: Hi Ivan, You are right! I should make legacyChanged volatile as well. I will get it tested it with tier-1 and get back to you tomorrow. Letu Probably best to being the discussion and the next version to security-dev as that is where the JCA code is

Re: RFR 8229958: Provider.getService() scalability issue for legacy algorithms and message digests

Hi Ivan, You are right! I should make legacyChanged volatile as well. I will get it tested it with tier-1 and get back to you tomorrow. Letu On 8/21/19, 12:08 AM, "Ivan Gerasimov" wrote: Hi Letu! The fix introduces a read of non-volatile variable legacyChanged outside of

Re: RFR(XS): 8229912: [TESTBUG] java/net/Socks/SocksIPv6Test fails without IPv6

On 21/08/2019 07:55, Nick Gasson wrote: Hi, Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8229912 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ngasson/8229912/webrev.0/ This test should be skipped if IPv6 is disabled on the host, and it already has a shouldRun field to support this. But at the moment

Re: RFR 8229958: Provider.getService() scalability issue for legacy algorithms and message digests

Hi Letu! The fix introduces a read of non-volatile variable legacyChanged outside of synchronized block, which is not guaranteed to produce consistent results. (Please note that in the mentioned fix for JDK-7092821 the variable servicesChanged was made volatile, so that it could be accessed

RFR(XS): 8229912: [TESTBUG] java/net/Socks/SocksIPv6Test fails without IPv6

Hi, Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8229912 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ngasson/8229912/webrev.0/ This test should be skipped if IPv6 is disabled on the host, and it already has a shouldRun field to support this. But at the moment the the setUp() method will throw inside