Hello!
Would you please review a simple fix of the javadoc for
ArrayList#removeRange() method?
The doc says that IndexOutOfBoundsException is thrown if fromIndex or
toIndex is out of range (fromIndex < 0 || fromIndex >= size() || toIndex
> size() || toIndex < fromIndex).
The condition 'fro
Ivan,
This does look a little odd, but since fromIndex is inclusive I would think
that it should throw if passed a value of size() ??
-Chris.
On 13 Mar 2014, at 15:29, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Would you please review a simple fix of the javadoc for
> ArrayList#removeRange() method
Thank you Chris!
It is System.arraycopy() method, where checking is performed and the
exception is thrown.
Here's this code:
if ( (((unsigned int) length + (unsigned int) src_pos) > (unsigned
int) s->length())
|| (((unsigned int) length + (unsigned int) dst_pos) > (unsigned
int) d->len
Thank you Martin for your feedback!
I'll add the test with the next webrev.
Here's the test I used to check that the exception isn't thrown:
class Test extends java.util.ArrayList {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Throwable {
Test list = new Test();
list.add(1);
On 13.03.2014 20:37, Martin Buchholz wrote:
The corner case for removeRange(SIZE, SIZE) does seem rather tricky,
and it's easy for an implementation to get it wrong. All the more
reason to add tests!
It was a good idea to add a test for removeRange().
I just discovered that IOOB isn't throw
On 13.03.2014 22:16, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
On 13.03.2014 20:37, Martin Buchholz wrote:
The corner case for removeRange(SIZE, SIZE) does seem rather tricky,
and it's easy for an implementation to get it wrong. All the more
reason to add tests!
It was a good idea to add a test for removeRan
Would you please take a look at the updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8014066/1/webrev/
In addition to the javadoc correction, it includes a regression test and
a check for (fromIndex > toIndex).
The last check turns out to be sufficient for removeRange() method to
agree with
Sorry, I forgot to incorporate changes to AbstractList.removeRange()
documentation, which you Martin had suggested.
Here's the webrev with those included:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8014066/2/webrev/
Sincerely yours,
Ivan
On 13.03.2014 23:03, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Would you please
On 03/13/2014 12:34 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
I notice there are zero jtreg tests for removeRange. That should be fixed.
I notice there is a removeRange in CopyOnWriteArrayList, but it is
package-private instead of "protected", which seems like an oversight. Can Doug
remember any history on t
Hi Ivan,
I think we need to apply the brakes here and back up a bit :)
First of all these aren't typo fixes they are spec changes and they will
need to go through CCC for approval.
Second point is that the condition "fromIndex >= size()" is already
captured by the condition "if {@code fromIn
Thank you David for your reply!
On 14.03.2014 8:56, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Ivan,
I think we need to apply the brakes here and back up a bit :)
First of all these aren't typo fixes they are spec changes and they
will need to go through CCC for approval.
Yes, sure. I haven't done that before,
Hi Ivan,
On 14/03/2014 5:05 PM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Thank you David for your reply!
On 14.03.2014 8:56, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Ivan,
I think we need to apply the brakes here and back up a bit :)
First of all these aren't typo fixes they are spec changes and they
will need to go through CCC
Thanks David!
On 14.03.2014 12:31, David Holmes wrote:
Second point is that the condition "fromIndex >= size()" is already
captured by the condition "if {@code fromIndex} or {@code toIndex} is
out of range". By definition fromIndex is out-of-range if it is < 0 or
>= size(). So I don't see an
On 03/14/2014 08:05 AM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
One thing I noticed is that some methods I mentioned above
(List.subList(), Arrays.sort(), etc) throw IllegalArgumentException
when fromIndex > toIndex, not IndexOutOfBoundException.
Wouldn't it be more correct to adopt this into removeRange() too?
Hi,
Without getting into the details, make sure that the behavior seen by
applications is not changed without careful and exhaustive review.
Usually, the specification is updated to match the existing long standing
behavior including exceptions and edge cases.
Roger
On 3/14/14 6:50 AM, Ivan
Thanks Peter for the comments.
On 14.03.2014 14:53, Peter Levart wrote:
On 03/14/2014 08:05 AM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
One thing I noticed is that some methods I mentioned above
(List.subList(), Arrays.sort(), etc) throw IllegalArgumentException
when fromIndex > toIndex, not IndexOutOfBoundExce
On 03/14/2014 02:38 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Doug Lea mailto:d...@cs.oswego.edu>> wrote:
On 03/13/2014 12:34 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
I notice there are zero jtreg tests for removeRange. That should be
fixed.
I notice there is a removeRa
Ivan,
On 14/03/2014 9:19 PM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Thanks Peter for the comments.
On 14.03.2014 14:53, Peter Levart wrote:
On 03/14/2014 08:05 AM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
One thing I noticed is that some methods I mentioned above
(List.subList(), Arrays.sort(), etc) throw IllegalArgumentExcepti
Hi Doug,
On 14/03/2014 9:42 PM, Doug Lea wrote:
On 03/14/2014 02:38 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Doug Lea mailto:d...@cs.oswego.edu>> wrote:
On 03/13/2014 12:34 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
I notice there are zero jtreg tests for removeRange. That
shoul
On 14.03.2014 16:02, David Holmes wrote:
Ivan,
On 14/03/2014 9:19 PM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Thanks Peter for the comments.
On 14.03.2014 14:53, Peter Levart wrote:
On 03/14/2014 08:05 AM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
One thing I noticed is that some methods I mentioned above
(List.subList(), Array
On 14/03/2014 10:14 PM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
On 14.03.2014 16:02, David Holmes wrote:
Ivan,
On 14/03/2014 9:19 PM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Thanks Peter for the comments.
On 14.03.2014 14:53, Peter Levart wrote:
On 03/14/2014 08:05 AM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
One thing I noticed is that some m
On 03/14/2014 08:07 AM, David Holmes wrote:
So what you are saying is that protected overrides of protected methods are not
required to honor the specification of the super method?
Not always, but ...
That certainly gives some implementation flexibility, but I don't think I've
ever seen it
On 03/14/2014 01:14 PM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
On 14.03.2014 16:02, David Holmes wrote:
Ivan,
On 14/03/2014 9:19 PM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Thanks Peter for the comments.
On 14.03.2014 14:53, Peter Levart wrote:
On 03/14/2014 08:05 AM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
One thing I noticed is that some m
On 14.03.2014 18:18, Peter Levart wrote:
On 03/14/2014 01:14 PM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
On 14.03.2014 16:02, David Holmes wrote:
Ivan,
On 14/03/2014 9:19 PM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Thanks Peter for the comments.
On 14.03.2014 14:53, Peter Levart wrote:
On 03/14/2014 08:05 AM, Ivan Gerasimov
On Mar 14 2014, at 05:14 , Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
>
> On 14.03.2014 16:02, David Holmes wrote:
>> Ivan,
>>
>> On 14/03/2014 9:19 PM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
>>> Thanks Peter for the comments.
>>>
>>> On 14.03.2014 14:53, Peter Levart wrote:
On 03/14/2014 08:05 AM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Thank you Martin!
On 15.03.2014 17:24, Martin Buchholz wrote:
We understand the intent of removeRange better now. I agree that making
further improvements is tricky.
I think we can all agree that the initial patch
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8014066/0/webrev/jdk.patch
is a clear improv
On 14/03/2014 10:22 PM, Doug Lea wrote:
On 03/14/2014 08:07 AM, David Holmes wrote:
So what you are saying is that protected overrides of protected
methods are not
required to honor the specification of the super method?
Not always, but ...
That certainly gives some implementation flexibil
Hi Martin,
On 15/03/2014 11:24 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
We understand the intent of removeRange better now. I agree that making
further improvements is tricky.
Almost impossible I'd say :)
I think we can all agree that the initial patch
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8014066/0/webrev
Here is yet another iteration of the fix:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8014066/3/webrev/
1)
The condition 'fromIndex >= size()' is removed from the spec.
I prefer removing it rather than replacing it with 'fromIndex > size()'
for two reasons:
- 'fromIndex > size()' already follows on fro
Am 16.03.2014 23:37, schrieb Ivan Gerasimov:
Here is yet another iteration of the fix:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8014066/3/webrev/
2)
Kept the check for 'fromIndex > toIndex' in removeRange().
While I understand that this should not add anything significant to the current code, as cur
On 17.03.2014 2:52, Ulf Zibis wrote:
Am 16.03.2014 23:37, schrieb Ivan Gerasimov:
Here is yet another iteration of the fix:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8014066/3/webrev/
2)
Kept the check for 'fromIndex > toIndex' in removeRange().
While I understand that this should not add anything
Hi Ivan,
Just to see the effect of the change, I ran the test without the code
change and it reported
331 failures and only 1 IndexOutOfBoundsException not thrown and that
was in java.util.Collections$SingletonMap.
(I can't appreciate the error reporting style with just a stack trace;
especia
Hi Ivan,
On 17/03/2014 8:37 AM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Here is yet another iteration of the fix:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8014066/3/webrev/
1)
The condition 'fromIndex >= size()' is removed from the spec.
I prefer removing it rather than replacing it with 'fromIndex > size()'
for two
Hello!
Would you please take a look at the next iteration of webrev?
I incorporated the last suggestions in it.
When I first proposed a simple typo fix, I didn't think it's going to
cause such a big discussion :)
Assuming this last iteration is OK, should the next step be a CCC request?
Sinc
Sorry, here's the link:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8014066/4/webrev/
On 18.03.2014 22:28, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Hello!
Would you please take a look at the next iteration of webrev?
I incorporated the last suggestions in it.
When I first proposed a simple typo fix, I didn't think it's
Am 18.03.2014 19:28, schrieb Ivan Gerasimov:
Assuming this last iteration is OK, should the next step be a CCC request?
Do you mean? :
/*
* ...
+ * It is assumed that fromIndex <= toIndex, otherwise the behaviour of
this method is undefined.
* ...
- * toInde
Looks good.
On Mar 18 2014, at 11:37 , Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
> Sorry, here's the link:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8014066/4/webrev/
>
> On 18.03.2014 22:28, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
>> Hello!
>>
>> Would you please take a look at the next iteration of webrev?
>> I incorporated the las
Am 18.03.2014 23:17, schrieb Martin Buchholz:
modCount is an imprecise concurrent modification mechanism. It doesn't have to be kept
transactionally correct.
Thanks, yes I know.
But does it hurt to make it more precise?
See this as a concept for a RFE.
-Ulf
Thank you Ulf!
On 19.03.2014 2:12, Ulf Zibis wrote:
Am 18.03.2014 19:28, schrieb Ivan Gerasimov:
Assuming this last iteration is OK, should the next step be a CCC
request?
Do you mean? :
/*
* ...
+ * It is assumed that fromIndex <= toIndex, otherwise the
behaviour of this me
Fine by me.
David
On 19/03/2014 4:37 AM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Sorry, here's the link:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8014066/4/webrev/
On 18.03.2014 22:28, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Hello!
Would you please take a look at the next iteration of webrev?
I incorporated the last suggestions in
On 19/03/14 08:29, David Holmes wrote:
Fine by me.
David
On 19/03/2014 4:37 AM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Sorry, here's the link:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8014066/4/webrev/
Looks fine to me too.
-Chris.
On 18.03.2014 22:28, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Hello!
Would you please take a l
On 19.03.2014 20:11, Martin Buchholz wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:19 AM, Ivan Gerasimov
mailto:ivan.gerasi...@oracle.com>> wrote:
Improving modCound handling can be done with a different RFE I
guess, as it doesn't connected to the rest of the fix.
I don't think modCount hand
Am 19.03.2014 09:19, schrieb Ivan Gerasimov:
Thank you Ulf!
On 19.03.2014 2:12, Ulf Zibis wrote:
Am 18.03.2014 19:28, schrieb Ivan Gerasimov:
Assuming this last iteration is OK, should the next step be a CCC request?
Do you mean? :
/*
* ...
+ * It is assumed that fromIndex <=
Am 19.03.2014 23:32, schrieb Martin Buchholz:
No one is as performance obsessed as Ulf.
:-D :-D :-D
Am 19.03.2014 23:37, schrieb Ulf Zibis:
Am 19.03.2014 23:32, schrieb Martin Buchholz:
No one is as performance obsessed as Ulf.
:-D :-D :-D
And additionally footprint obsessed
-Ulf
45 matches
Mail list logo
