On 08/24/2017 12:31 AM, Claes Redestad wrote:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/8186500/jdk.04/
Looks good!
-Aleksey
On 2017-08-23 18:35, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
Sure, mind if I defer that to a future RFE, though?:-)
Oh, c'mon, that should be a simple change:) And it makes the patch (that we
would have to backport
some day) more readable!
Ok then:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/8186500/jdk.04/
/C
On 08/23/2017 06:31 PM, Claes Redestad wrote:
>
>
> On 08/23/2017 06:31 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> On 08/23/2017 06:26 PM, Claes Redestad wrote:
>>> On 08/23/2017 06:08 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
332 Object value = Objects.requireNonNull(cnst);
333 if
On 08/23/2017 06:31 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
On 08/23/2017 06:26 PM, Claes Redestad wrote:
On 08/23/2017 06:08 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
332 Object value = Objects.requireNonNull(cnst);
333 if (!value.getClass().isPrimitive()) {
334 this.v
On 08/23/2017 06:26 PM, Claes Redestad wrote:
> On 08/23/2017 06:08 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> 332 Object value = Objects.requireNonNull(cnst);
>> 333 if (!value.getClass().isPrimitive()) {
>> 334 this.value = String.valueOf(cnst);
>> 335
On 08/23/2017 06:08 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
On 08/23/2017 01:52 PM, Claes Redestad wrote:
What I wasn't sure about is *when* the String.valueOf should happen, but as
makeConcatWithConstants specify "If necessary, the factory would call toString
to
perform a one-time String conversion" then
On 08/23/2017 01:52 PM, Claes Redestad wrote:
> What I wasn't sure about is *when* the String.valueOf should happen, but as
> makeConcatWithConstants specify "If necessary, the factory would call
> toString to
> perform a one-time String conversion" then I think we could (should?) do this
> at
>
Right,
the Wrapper.* code appears to work fine, but makeConcatWithConstants has
pre-existing issues with non-primitive, non-String constants.
What I wasn't sure about is *when* the String.valueOf should happen, but as
makeConcatWithConstants specify "If necessary, the factory would call
toStrin
On 08/22/2017 07:10 PM, Claes Redestad wrote:
> On 2017-08-22 18:34, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/8186500/jdk.01/
>> Still think testing for {null, Class, MethodHandle, MethodType} would cover
>> more interesting corner
>> cases.
>
> Do you mean as constant arg
t; Envoyé: Mardi 22 Août 2017 19:10:29
> Objet: Re: RFR: 8186500: StringConcatFactory.makeConcatWithConstants throws
> AssertionError when recipe contains
> non-String constants
> On 2017-08-22 18:34, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/8186500/jdk.
On 2017-08-22 18:34, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/8186500/jdk.01/
Still think testing for {null, Class, MethodHandle, MethodType} would cover
more interesting corner
cases.
Do you mean as constant arguments? And what should happen in each of
these cases?
/
On 08/22/2017 04:53 PM, Claes Redestad wrote:
> Extending the existing StringConcatFactoryInvariants test we can easily get
> most basic
> combinations covered, along with some basic verification.
>
> This uncovered what appears to be a similar issue in the BC_SB SCF strategy,
> which can be
> d
Extending the existing StringConcatFactoryInvariants test we can easily
get most basic
combinations covered, along with some basic verification.
This uncovered what appears to be a similar issue in the BC_SB SCF
strategy, which can be
dealt with by coercing the possibly non-String constant to S
On 08/21/2017 08:17 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> On 08/21/2017 08:06 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>>> On 21 Aug 2017, at 07:48, Claes Redestad wrote:
>>> a trivial test[1] invoking the StringConcatFactory.makeConcatWithConstants
>>> fails
>>> when providing an Integer as a constant, which appears to b
On 08/21/2017 08:06 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>> On 21 Aug 2017, at 07:48, Claes Redestad wrote:
>> a trivial test[1] invoking the StringConcatFactory.makeConcatWithConstants
>> fails
>> when providing an Integer as a constant, which appears to be due to failure
>> to
>> coerce boxed types to the c
> On 21 Aug 2017, at 07:48, Claes Redestad wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> a trivial test[1] invoking the StringConcatFactory.makeConcatWithConstants
> fails
> when providing an Integer as a constant, which appears to be due to failure to
> coerce boxed types to the corresponding primitive types when looki
16 matches
Mail list logo
