Thanks Joel,
I will push this now.
Regards, Peter
On 09/18/2013 11:28 AM, Joel Borggrén-Franck wrote:
Looks good Peter,
cheers
/Joel
On 2013-09-15, Peter Levart wrote:
Hi,
I rebased the changes and added @bug tag to test. Here's new webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk8-tl/Anno
Looks good Peter,
cheers
/Joel
On 2013-09-15, Peter Levart wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I rebased the changes and added @bug tag to test. Here's new webrev:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk8-tl/AnnotationData/webrev.04/
>
>
> Joel, I believe you've got the "R" mojo now...
>
>
> Regards, Pete
Hi,
I rebased the changes and added @bug tag to test. Here's new webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk8-tl/AnnotationData/webrev.04/
Joel, I believe you've got the "R" mojo now...
Regards, Peter
On 09/09/2013 06:57 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
Hi Joel,
Thanks for reviewing.
On 09/09
Hi Joel,
Thanks for reviewing.
On 09/09/2013 04:25 PM, Joel Borggrén-Franck wrote:
Hi Peter,
Thanks for this, please add a "@bug 8011940" tag to your test. IMO you don't
need a re-review for that. Otherwise looks good.
I'll do that. I just didn't know whether tagging with bug-ID is meant
Hi Peter,
Thanks for this, please add a "@bug 8011940" tag to your test. IMO you don't
need a re-review for that. Otherwise looks good.
We still need a Reviewer, Chris, you reviewed a previous version, can you look
at this one too?
cheers
/Joel
On 27 aug 2013, at 15:00, Peter Levart wrote:
On 08/13/2013 09:52 AM, Joel Borggrén-Franck wrote:
1) We should really measure this.
Hi Joel,
Here're some measurements of memory usages for some typical situations:
// no annotations
public static class *Unannotated* {
}
// typical annotations (JPA-like)
@Target(TYPE)
Hi Joel and others,
Here's a 3rd revision of this proposed patch:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk8-tl/AnnotationData/webrev.03/
I used LinkedHashMap for annotations in this one. It means that now even
.getAnnotations() are reported in "declaration order": 1st inherited
(includes overr
Hi all,
Comments inline,
On 12 aug 2013, at 15:19, Paul Sandoz wrote:
> On Aug 12, 2013, at 2:40 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
>> On 08/12/2013 12:54 PM, Joel Borggren-Franck wrote:
>>> I realize the interaction between probably any reflective operation and
>>> a redefine is blurry, but if a redefin
Hi,
Comments inline,
On 12 aug 2013, at 14:40, Peter Levart wrote:
>
> On 08/12/2013 12:54 PM, Joel Borggren-Franck wrote:
>>
>
> - annotation (@interface) declarations can themselves be redefined (for
> example, defaults changed). Such redefinitions don't affect already
> initialized anno
On 08/12/2013 03:19 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>- inherited annotations. They are combined with declared annotations in a Map
that is cached in the AnnotationData. If superclass is redefined, the inherited
annotations are not invalidated. Unless the VM increments classRedefinedCount for
the redefi
On Aug 12, 2013, at 2:40 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
> Hi Joel,
>
> Thanks for review. Comments inline...
>
> On 08/12/2013 12:54 PM, Joel Borggren-Franck wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> Thank you for looking in to this!
>>
>> On 2013-08-11, Peter Levart wrote:
>>> On 08/07/2013 06:42 PM, Aleksey Ship
Hi Joel,
Thanks for review. Comments inline...
On 08/12/2013 12:54 PM, Joel Borggren-Franck wrote:
Hi Peter,
Thank you for looking in to this!
On 2013-08-11, Peter Levart wrote:
On 08/07/2013 06:42 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
Hi Peter,
On 08/07/2013 08:18 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
http://cr
Hi Peter,
Thank you for looking in to this!
On 2013-08-11, Peter Levart wrote:
>
> On 08/07/2013 06:42 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> >Hi Peter,
> >
> >On 08/07/2013 08:18 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
> >>http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk8-tl/AnnotationData/webrev.01/
> >Yeah, looks familiar. Th
Looks good to me too.
-Chris.
On 12/08/2013 09:20, Paul Sandoz wrote:
On Aug 11, 2013, at 8:12 PM, Aleksey Shipilev
wrote:
On 08/11/2013 03:39 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk8-tl/AnnotationData/webrev.02/
Thanks Peter, this looks good to me (not a capital
On Aug 11, 2013, at 8:12 PM, Aleksey Shipilev
wrote:
> On 08/11/2013 03:39 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk8-tl/AnnotationData/webrev.02/
>
> Thanks Peter, this looks good to me (not a capital Reviewer).
>
+1 (with no reviewer mojo).
Paul.
On 08/11/2013 03:39 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk8-tl/AnnotationData/webrev.02/
Thanks Peter, this looks good to me (not a capital Reviewer).
-Aleksey.
On 08/07/2013 06:42 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
Hi Peter,
On 08/07/2013 08:18 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk8-tl/AnnotationData/webrev.01/
Yeah, looks familiar. The install loop is very complicated though, can
we simplify it? It seems profitable to move the re
Hi Peter,
On 08/07/2013 08:18 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk8-tl/AnnotationData/webrev.01/
Yeah, looks familiar. The install loop is very complicated though, can
we simplify it? It seems profitable to move the retry loop up into
annotationData(): you then don't
Hi,
I propose a patch for the following and related bugs:
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=8011940
Here's the 1st webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk8-tl/AnnotationData/webrev.01/
The patch eliminates classic synchronization by using optimistic
concurrent constr
19 matches
Mail list logo
