Re: JDK 14 RFR of JDK-8232230: Suppress warnings on non-serializable non-transient instance fields in java.util.concurrent

Hi Martin, On 10/15/2019 8:02 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote: On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 10:48 PM Joe Darcy > wrote: Hi Martin, On 10/14/2019 10:28 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote: Hi Joe, I'm surprised there were so few changes. The changes in questi

RE: RFR (S) 8232168: Fix non wide char canonicalization on Windows

Hi, this item is really on the edge between core-libs and hotspot. So I'm including both lists now. The canonicalize() method is implemented in libjava, for both Unix and Windows. For Unix, it is used from hotspot, libjava (the file system implementations) and libinstrument. But for Windows,

RE: RFR (S) 8232168: Fix non wide char canonicalization on Windows

Hi David, the canonicalize() method is never used by java.io or any Java code. Currently it is used by the hotspot in classloader.cpp (which I use in the test) and in libinstrument in InvocationAdapter.c. There is no way to test it in core-libs. One can argue if the canonicalize method is in th

Re: [JDK 14] RFR 8232195: Enable BigInteger tests: DivisionOverflow, SymmetricRangeTests and StringConstructorOverflow

Hi, Joe I checked the elapsed time: DivisionOverflow.java  <10 seconds  (normally 3 seconds) StringConstructorOverflow.java <20 seconds  (normally 8 seconds) SymmetricRangeTests.java   <100 seconds (normally 60-80 seconds) I think it's fine and worth to enable them in standard testi

Re: [JDK 14] RFR 8232195: Enable BigInteger tests: DivisionOverflow, SymmetricRangeTests and StringConstructorOverflow

Thank you Brian for reviewing and reminder. Updated webrev script and re-generated (no code change compare to webrev.00): http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~amlu/8232195/webrev.01 Thanks, Amy On 10/15/19 11:33 PM, Brian Burkhalter wrote: Hi Amy, This looks OK. It looks like DivisionOverflow was al

Re: RFR: JDK-8226585: Improve javac messages for using a preview API

Hi, An updated patch is here: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlahoda/8226585/webrev.02/ Changes in the update: -added the dependency into the makefiles -loosened the handling of essential preview APIs when --enable-preview and @SuppressWarnings is applied - there is no warning for the essential A

Re: RFR: JDK-8226585: Improve javac messages for using a preview API

Build change looks good now. /Erik On 2019-10-16 05:50, Jan Lahoda wrote: Hi, An updated patch is here: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlahoda/8226585/webrev.02/ Changes in the update: -added the dependency into the makefiles -loosened the handling of essential preview APIs when --enable-preview

Re: RFR of JDK-8134599: TEST_BUG: java/rmi/transport/closeServerSocket/CloseServerSocket.java fails intermittently with Address already in use

Hi Hamlin, Some additional logging that the socket has been closed might be useful in TCPTransport.java. In particular,  -  in the decrementExportCount() method  -  in the closeSocket() method; With respect to Asynchronous... The call to unexport(force = true) is synchronous if the referenc

RFR 8231451: ZipFileInputStream::skip handling of negative values with STORED entries

Hi all, Please review this fix to ZipFileInputStream::skip when specifying a negative value to the skip method when accessing a STORED entry, https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8231451 . Prior to this fix, you could move past the beginni

Re: RFR: JDK-8226585: Improve javac messages for using a preview API

On 10/16/2019 5:50 AM, Jan Lahoda wrote: -loosened the handling of essential preview APIs when --enable-preview and @SuppressWarnings is applied - there is no warning for the essential APIs (as there is no warning in such a case for non-essential APIs). This is per the discussion in the CSR: h

JDK-8232280: close() is not called on return value of Files.walk()

Please review the jpackage fix for bug [1] at [2]. This is a fix for the JDK-8200758-branch branch of the open sandbox repository (jpackage). Fix is to wrap all Files.walk() calls in try-with-resource blocks. [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8232280 [2] http://cr.openjdk.java.net

RRF: JDK-8232280: close() is not called on return value of Files.walk()

fixing subject line ... On 10/16/2019 4:03 PM, Andy Herrick wrote: Please review the jpackage fix for bug [1] at [2]. This is a fix for the JDK-8200758-branch branch of the open sandbox repository (jpackage). Fix is to wrap all Files.walk() calls in try-with-resource blocks. [1] https://bug

Re: JDK-8232280: close() is not called on return value of Files.walk()

Hi Andy, Looks good. Thanks, Alexander On 10/16/2019 1:03 PM, Andy Herrick wrote: Please review the jpackage fix for bug [1] at [2]. This is a fix for the JDK-8200758-branch branch of the open sandbox repository (jpackage). Fix is to wrap all Files.walk() calls in try-with-resource blocks.

Re: JDK 14 RFR of JDK-8232230: Suppress warnings on non-serializable non-transient instance fields in java.util.concurrent

I did another pass. If there was a way for jsr166 maintainers to see these warnings, we could more easily fix ourselves. But there is no such thing as a "preview javac warning", eh? --- The comments for Condition declarations are still not consistent - every one is known to be Serializable, but t

Re: RRF: JDK-8232280: close() is not called on return value of Files.walk()

The webrev is modified in place to remove one file, and now passes build on all platforms. /Andy On 10/16/2019 4:31 PM, Andy Herrick wrote: fixing subject line ... On 10/16/2019 4:03 PM, Andy Herrick wrote: Please review the jpackage fix for bug [1] at [2]. This is a fix for the JDK-8200758

Re: RRF: JDK-8232280: close() is not called on return value of Files.walk()

Looks good. - Alexey On 10/16/2019 6:04 PM, Andy Herrick wrote: The webrev is modified in place to remove one file, and now passes build on all platforms. /Andy On 10/16/2019 4:31 PM, Andy Herrick wrote: fixing subject line ... On 10/16/2019 4:03 PM, Andy Herrick wrote: Please review the

Re: JDK 14 RFR of JDK-8232230: Suppress warnings on non-serializable non-transient instance fields in java.util.concurrent

Hi Martin, On 10/16/2019 2:56 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote: I did another pass. If there was a way for jsr166 maintainers to see these warnings, we could more easily fix ourselves.  But there is no such thing as a "preview javac warning", eh? I could send you the annotation processor I'm using

Re: JDK 14 RFR of JDK-8232230: Suppress warnings on non-serializable non-transient instance fields in java.util.concurrent

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 3:56 PM Joe Darcy wrote: > > > The comments for Condition declarations are still not consistent - > > every one is known to be Serializable, but they cannot be declared > > Condition & Serializable because Java does not have first-class > > support for intersection types.

RFR: JDK-8232387: tools/jpackage/share/jdk/jpackage/tests/BasicTest.java fails

Please review the jpackage fix for bug [1] at [2]. This is a fix for the JDK-8200758-branch branch of the open sandbox repository (jpackage). Additionally regression in JPackageCommand class fixed. - Alexey [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8232387 [2] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/

Re: JDK 14 RFR of JDK-8232230: Suppress warnings on non-serializable non-transient instance fields in java.util.concurrent

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 3:56 PM Joe Darcy wrote: > > FWIW, this code compiles in javac > > public interface SerializableCondition extends Condition, > Serializable { > public static > SerializableCondition transform(C > condition) { >

Re: RFR: JDK-8232387: tools/jpackage/share/jdk/jpackage/tests/BasicTest.java fails

Looks good. On 10/16/2019 4:56 PM, Alexey Semenyuk wrote: Please review the jpackage fix for bug [1] at [2]. This is a fix for the JDK-8200758-branch branch of the open sandbox repository (jpackage). Additionally regression in JPackageCommand class fixed. - Alexey [1] https://bugs.openjdk.

Typo in a java base javadoc

Hi there, I’m sending this message to this mailing list after receiving guidance from Dalibor Topic. I found a typo in a java.base class and wanted to know how I should go about making contributions to it. I hope this is the right channel to bring this up. Aditya Srinivasan

Re: RFR of JDK-8134599: TEST_BUG: java/rmi/transport/closeServerSocket/CloseServerSocket.java fails intermittently with Address already in use

Thanks Roger! On 2019/10/16 10:51 PM, Roger Riggs wrote: Hi Hamlin, Some additional logging that the socket has been closed might be useful in TCPTransport.java. In particular,  -  in the decrementExportCount() method  -  in the closeSocket() method; I agree, just created https://bugs.openjd