On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 08:56:05 GMT, Сергей Цыпанов
wrote:
>> FYI it is better to use merge, instead of rebase+force push. Rebase breaks
>> history and all existed code comments.
>
> @mrserb thanks for pointing this out!
Thanks for updating with latest master changes Sergey! My tests were all
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 08:49:38 GMT, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
>> Rebased onto master to have the fix introduced in
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/778
>
> FYI it is better to use merge, instead of rebase+force push. Rebase breaks
> history and all existed code comments.
@mrserb thanks for
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 08:40:02 GMT, Сергей Цыпанов
wrote:
>> client changes are fine
>
> Rebased onto master to have the fix introduced in
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/778
FYI it is better to use merge, instead of rebase+force push. Rebase breaks
history and all existed code comments.
On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 23:12:09 GMT, Phil Race wrote:
>> Сергей Цыпанов has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains one additional
>> commit
> As discussed in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/510 there is never a
> reason to explicitly instantiate any instance of `Atomic*` class with its
> default value, i.e. `new AtomicInteger(0)` could be replaced with `new
> AtomicInteger()` which is faster:
> @State(Scope.Thread)
>
