Thank you for the suggestions, Mandy and David. I've pushed the change.
-Brent
On 16/11/2019 4:38 am, Brent Christian wrote:
On 11/14/19 4:46 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
On 11/14/19 4:42 PM, David Holmes wrote:
If you really want to test both positive and negative cases from a
clean slate then I would suggest modifying the test slightly and
using two @run commands - one to
On 11/15/19 10:38 AM, Brent Christian wrote:
That sounds good. Test updated here:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bchristi/8233272/webrev-04/
Looks good. Minor: an additional check to consider is to check if
NCDFE's cause whose message contains "MissingClass" just to be sure.
No new
On 11/14/19 4:46 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
On 11/14/19 4:42 PM, David Holmes wrote:
If you really want to test both positive and negative cases from a
clean slate then I would suggest modifying the test slightly and using
two @run commands - one to try to initialize and one to not.
Yes this
On 11/14/19 4:42 PM, David Holmes wrote:
On 15/11/2019 10:33 am, Brent Christian wrote:
On 11/14/19 4:12 PM, David Holmes wrote:
On 15/11/2019 9:58 am, Brent Christian wrote:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bchristi/8233272/webrev-03/
Test is fine. Just one note/clarification:
63
On 15/11/2019 10:33 am, Brent Christian wrote:
On 11/14/19 4:12 PM, David Holmes wrote:
On 15/11/2019 9:58 am, Brent Christian wrote:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bchristi/8233272/webrev-03/
Test is fine. Just one note/clarification:
63 // Loading (but not linking) Container will
On 11/14/19 4:12 PM, David Holmes wrote:
On 15/11/2019 9:58 am, Brent Christian wrote:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bchristi/8233272/webrev-03/
Test is fine. Just one note/clarification:
63 // Loading (but not linking) Container will succeed.
Container was already loaded as part
Hi Brent,
On 15/11/2019 9:58 am, Brent Christian wrote:
On 11/14/19 8:22 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
On 11/13/19 10:37 AM, Brent Christian wrote:
The spec change looks fine.
OK, thanks.
+1 from me on spec changes.
As for the test, I expect that it simply calls
Class.forName("Provider",
On 11/14/19 8:22 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
On 11/13/19 10:37 AM, Brent Christian wrote:
The spec change looks fine.
OK, thanks.
As for the test, I expect that it simply calls Class.forName("Provider",
false, ucl) and then should succeed.
Then calling Class.forName("Provider", true, ucl)
On 11/13/19 10:37 AM, Brent Christian wrote:
Hi,
Recently, the 2-arg and 3-arg Class.forName() methods were updated[1]
to perform class linking, per the specification. However this change
had to be reverted[2].
Instead, let's clarify the Class.forName() spec not to guarantee
linking
Hi,
Recently, the 2-arg and 3-arg Class.forName() methods were updated[1] to
perform class linking, per the specification. However this change had
to be reverted[2].
Instead, let's clarify the Class.forName() spec not to guarantee linking
(outside the case of also performing
11 matches
Mail list logo
