On 2015-03-10 08:53, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
David at all,
May I consider the fix as reviewed and continue with integration?
Dmitry,
If you fix this, maybe you can also have a look at
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8074839? Basically, at this
point, it would just be about verifyin
On 10/03/2015 5:53 PM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
David at all,
May I consider the fix as reviewed and continue with integration?
Seems okay to me.
David
-Dmitry
On 2015-02-24 05:23, David Holmes wrote:
On 24/02/2015 12:02 AM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
Hi Everyone,
Webrev updated in-place (
David at all,
May I consider the fix as reviewed and continue with integration?
-Dmitry
On 2015-02-24 05:23, David Holmes wrote:
> On 24/02/2015 12:02 AM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> Webrev updated in-place (press shift-reload)
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-
David,
On 2015-02-24 05:23, David Holmes wrote:
> On 24/02/2015 12:02 AM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> Webrev updated in-place (press shift-reload)
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8073584/webrev.01/
>
> share/native/libunpack/jni.cpp
>
> 295 return (jobject)
Hi Everyone,
Webrev updated in-place (press shift-reload)
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8073584/webrev.01/
Updated formatting.
Hack in main.cpp replaced with true error check.
-Dmitry
On 2015-02-23 05:07, David Holmes wrote:
> On 21/02/2015 4:27 AM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
>> Hi
On 21/02/2015 4:27 AM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
Hi Everyone,
It's my $0.02 to the warning cleanup work. Please review:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8073584/webrev.01/
Notes:
I use an ugly trick: (void) (read() + 1) to get rid of ignored value
warning because since gcc 4.6 just (v
John,
Generally speaking, we should select warnings carefully - not just turn
all of it on.
For instance, I don't see any value of "format is not a string literal"
warning for JDK code.
Please, see also below.
On 2015-02-22 06:20, John Rose wrote:
> On Feb 21, 2015, at 5:38 PM, Kumar Srinivasa
On Feb 21, 2015, at 5:38 PM, Kumar Srinivasan
wrote:
>
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> adding John on this.
>
> unpack.cpp
> What is wrong with the unary operator ? Does this emit a compiler warning ?
(It's the ternary operator right?) The problem is that the format string (oh,
the cleverness!!) is non-c
Hi Dmitry,
adding John on this.
unpack.cpp
What is wrong with the unary operator ? Does this emit a compiler warning ?
- sprintf(buf, ((uint)e.tag < CONSTANT_Limit)? TAG_NAME[e.tag]: "%d", e.tag);
+ if ((uint)e.tag < CONSTANT_Limit) {
+sprintf(buf, "%s", TAG_NAME[e.tag]);
+ }
+ else {
Hi Everyone,
It's my $0.02 to the warning cleanup work. Please review:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8073584/webrev.01/
Notes:
I use an ugly trick: (void) (read() + 1) to get rid of ignored value
warning because since gcc 4.6 just (void) is not enough.
-Dmitry
--
Dmitry Samers
10 matches
Mail list logo
