On Sep 19, 2013, at 9:57 AM, David Chase david.r.ch...@oracle.com wrote:
Recommended changes made:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~drchase/8022701/webrev.04/
Looks good. Thanks for using ASM.
Test with jtreg (for pass and for induced failure) on MacOS,
not sure what additional other
On Sep 19, 2013, at 9:57 AM, David Chase david.r.ch...@oracle.com wrote:
Recommended changes made:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~drchase/8022701/webrev.04/
Good; reviewed.
Consider adding this tweak, which would close the loop on alternation between
the fooError and fooException versions:
+
Recommended changes made:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~drchase/8022701/webrev.04/
Test with jtreg (for pass and for induced failure) on MacOS,
not sure what additional other testing is desired since it is entirely in the
libraries.
I included code to handle the case of a broken
New webrev, commented line removed:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~drchase/8022701/webrev.03/
On 2013-09-12, at 1:53 PM, David Chase david.r.ch...@oracle.com wrote:
I believe it produced extraneous output -- it was not clear to me that it was
either necessary or useful to fully describe all the
+ // err.initCause(ex);
Why is this commented?
-- Chris
On Sep 6, 2013, at 4:59 PM, David Chase david.r.ch...@oracle.com wrote:
new, improved webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~drchase/8022701/webrev.02/
Same small changes to the sources, plus a test.
bug: wrong exception was
I believe it produced extraneous output -- it was not clear to me that it was
either necessary or useful to fully describe all the converted exceptions that
lead to the defined exception being thrown. The commented line should have
just been removed (I think).
On 2013-09-12, at 1:24 PM,
The test is adapted from the test in the bug report.
The headline on the bug report is wrong -- because it uses reflection in the
test to do the invocation,
the thrown exception is wrapped with InvocationTargetException, which is
completely correct.
HOWEVER, the exception inside the wrapper is
On Sep 12, 2013, at 11:28 AM, David Chase david.r.ch...@oracle.com wrote:
New webrev, commented line removed:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~drchase/8022701/webrev.03/
I think the change is good given that the tests work now. Is your test derived
from the test in the bug report?
And it would
It looks good. I have three requests.
Regarding this comment:
+ * See MethodSupplier.java to see how to produce these bytes.
+ * They encode that class, except that method m is private, not public.
The recipe is incomplete, since it does not say which bits to tweak to make m
private.
Do these sibling bugs have numbers?
And I take it you would like to see
1) a test enhanced with ASM to do all 3 variants of this
2) DO attach the underlying cause
David
On 2013-09-12, at 5:35 PM, John Rose john.r.r...@oracle.com wrote:
It looks good. I have three requests.
Regarding this
On Sep 12, 2013, at 5:44 PM, David Chase david.r.ch...@oracle.com wrote:
Do these sibling bugs have numbers?
Yes, 8022701. I just updated the bug to explain their common genesis.
And I take it you would like to see
1) a test enhanced with ASM to do all 3 variants of this
Yes, please.
11 matches
Mail list logo