Hi Naoto,
The fix would be fine if you want to keep it as is since it does work.
I noticed though that for standard zones (the ones loaded from tz
database), savingsInstantTransitions and standardTransitions are
consistent in that they are both empty for the standard zones, e.g.
Etc/GMT, and
Hi Takiguchi-san,
A few comments:
- I'd recommend sorting the entries in MS950.nr and test data in
TestMS950.java for readability.
- Add some comment about the objective in the test. It'd be hard for
engineers who have no previous knowledge to these bytes.
Naoto
On 3/2/20 9:33 AM,
Looks fine to me.
/Alex
On 02-Mar-20 22:38, Andy Herrick wrote:
I sent this in reply to Alexey, needed to send it to alias:
On 2/6/2020 4:54 PM, Andy Herrick wrote:
I had fixed that and failed to push the revised webrev [4]
[4] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~herrick/8237967/webrev.03/
/Andy
Andrew Haley schrieb am Mo., 2. März 2020, 13:00:
> On 11/19/18 8:39 PM, Kim Barrett wrote:
> > I don't see any benefit to making the first C++ code change that uses
> > a new feature also incorporate the needed build system changes.
> > Indeed, how does one develop that feature usage unless one
> On Mar 2, 2020, at 7:00 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> On 11/19/18 8:39 PM, Kim Barrett wrote:
>> I don't see any benefit to making the first C++ code change that uses
>> a new feature also incorporate the needed build system changes.
>> Indeed, how does one develop that feature usage unless one
On 03/01/2020 02:26 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 01/03/2020 12:03, Alex Kashchenko wrote:
Hi,
Please review the fix to JDK-8232854 for 11u:
Jira issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8232854
This issue has not been fixed in the main line (jdk/jdk) yet. It may be
that the eventual fix
I sent this in reply to Alexey, needed to send it to alias:
On 2/6/2020 4:54 PM, Andy Herrick wrote:
I had fixed that and failed to push the revised webrev [4]
[4] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~herrick/8237967/webrev.03/
/Andy
On 2/6/2020 11:46 AM, Alexey Semenyuk wrote:
Andy,
Hi,
My OCA has been processed recently and I want to start Contributing to
OpenJDK.
As a first fix, I would like to remove the explicit type argument in test
class test/jdk/java/lang/Boolean/MakeBooleanComparable.java to fix one
warning.
The first line given below is the existing code and the
Looks good.
Give it a day to see if anyone else has comments.
Thanks, Roger
On 3/2/20 1:35 PM, naoto.s...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Roger, thanks for the review.
On 3/2/20 8:44 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Naoto,
look ok.
ZoneRules.java: 488, 644, 761, 791
I'd suggest calling isFixedOffset()
Hi Roger, thanks for the review.
On 3/2/20 8:44 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Naoto,
look ok.
ZoneRules.java: 488, 644, 761, 791
I'd suggest calling isFixedOffset() instead of repeating the code:
standardTransitions.length == 0 && savingsInstantTransitions.length == 0
Modified as suggested:
Hello.
Could you review the fix ?
Bug:https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8232161
Change: https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~itakiguchi/8232161/webrev.01/
CSR 8233385 [1] was approved.
[1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8233385
Thanks,
Ichiroh Takiguchi
IBM Japan, Ltd.
Hi Naoto,
look ok.
ZoneRules.java: 488, 644, 761, 791
I'd suggest calling isFixedOffset() instead of repeating the code:
standardTransitions.length == 0 && savingsInstantTransitions.length == 0
It should be inlined in cases where the performance matters.
Thanks, Roger
On 2/27/20 3:41 PM,
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 7:15 AM Volker Simonis
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 8:02 PM Martin Buchholz
> wrote:
> >
> > Welcome to the troublesome world of zip implementations!
> >
>
> Well, not many remember that the zip format was designed to work
> efficiently with floppy discs :)
>
> > It
Hi,
I tried to correct this problem.
Could you review this fix, please?
According to the RFC 4122, UUID has a fixed format. I tried to raise an
exception if a string was specified that is not suitable for this
format. Also, is there anything else I should be aware of with this bug?
Webrev :
On 11/19/18 8:39 PM, Kim Barrett wrote:
> I don't see any benefit to making the first C++ code change that uses
> a new feature also incorporate the needed build system changes.
> Indeed, how does one develop that feature usage unless one has the
> build system changes already in hand?
>
> It
15 matches
Mail list logo
