hg: jdk8/tl/jdk: 7166048: Remove the embeded epoll data structure.

Changeset: 62557a1336c0 Author:zhouyx Date: 2012-05-07 16:43 +0800 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/62557a1336c0 7166048: Remove the embeded epoll data structure. Reviewed-by: alanb ! src/solaris/native/sun/nio/ch/EPollArrayWrapper.c

Re: [doc]Small modification on the WeakHashMap doc

Thanks David :-) On 05/07/2012 11:45 AM, David Holmes wrote: Hi Charles, On 7/05/2012 1:05 PM, Charles Lee wrote: Does anyone interested in this issue? Interest and time are two different things :) A shorter form would be: "If the values in the map do not rely on the map holding strong re

Pass a pointer to JNI_GetCreatedJavaVMs() instead of null

Hi All, There is a potential problem in jdk/src/share/native/com/sun/java/util/jar/pack/jni.cpp. (Maybe it is not suitable for posting this on core-lib, anyone could tell me which mailing list is prefer?) L85: JNI_GetCreatedJavaVMs(&vm, 1, null) in which the 3rd parameter is a pointer to

Re: Pass a pointer to JNI_GetCreatedJavaVMs() instead of null

On 7/05/2012 7:38 PM, Deven You wrote: Hi All, There is a potential problem in jdk/src/share/native/com/sun/java/util/jar/pack/jni.cpp. (Maybe it is not suitable for posting this on core-lib, anyone could tell me which mailing list is prefer?) L85: JNI_GetCreatedJavaVMs(&vm, 1, null) in which

hg: jdk8/tl/jdk: 7166687: InetAddress.getLocalHost().getHostName() returns FQDN

Changeset: b26c04717735 Author:robm Date: 2012-05-07 13:34 +0100 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/b26c04717735 7166687: InetAddress.getLocalHost().getHostName() returns FQDN Reviewed-by: chegar ! src/solaris/native/java/net/Inet6AddressImpl.c

Re: Pass a pointer to JNI_GetCreatedJavaVMs() instead of null

On 07/05/2012 11:39, David Holmes wrote: The spec doesn't say anything but the implementation does check for NULL. I think this is a spec issue rather than a code issue (and I think hotspot-runtime owns the JNI spec so cc'ed). It is common practice for API's that take pointers like this to sa

Re: Pass a pointer to JNI_GetCreatedJavaVMs() instead of null

Hi David, Deven, Alan, The spec doesn't say anything but the implementation does check for NULL. I think this is a spec issue rather than a code issue (and I think hotspot-runtime owns the JNI spec so cc'ed). It is common practice for API's that take pointers like this to say "if buf is not NU

Re: Pass a pointer to JNI_GetCreatedJavaVMs() instead of null

On 07/05/2012 16:45, Kumar Srinivasan wrote: Hi David, Deven, Alan, The spec doesn't say anything but the implementation does check for NULL. I think this is a spec issue rather than a code issue (and I think hotspot-runtime owns the JNI spec so cc'ed). It is common practice for API's that tak

Re: Review Request for CR : 7144861 RMI activation tests are too slow

Hi Stuart, Thanks for reviewing. Please see comments inlined. Stuart Marks said on date 5/5/2012 3:50 AM: On 5/3/12 10:53 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: On 03/05/2012 14:09, Olivier Lagneau wrote: Please review this fix for making the jdk regression tests for rmi activation run faster. It brings a

Re: Review Request for CR : 7144861 RMI activation tests are too slow

Thanks david for reviewing too. Please see comments inlined. David Holmes said on date 5/6/2012 2:30 PM: On 5/05/2012 11:50 AM, Stuart Marks wrote: On 03/05/2012 14:09, Olivier Lagneau wrote: Please review this fix for making the jdk regression tests for rmi activation run faster. It brings

Re: Pass a pointer to JNI_GetCreatedJavaVMs() instead of null / review please

Hi, Please review http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ksrini/7166955 Thanks Kumar On 07/05/2012 16:45, Kumar Srinivasan wrote: Hi David, Deven, Alan, The spec doesn't say anything but the implementation does check for NULL. I think this is a spec issue rather than a code issue (and I think hotspo

Re: Pass a pointer to JNI_GetCreatedJavaVMs() instead of null / review please

Hi Kumar, Based on the discussion, should it check for a (retval != JNI_OK || vm == null) instead of (retval < 0 || vm == null)? Regards, Vitaly Sent from my phone On May 7, 2012 4:23 PM, "Kumar Srinivasan" wrote: > Hi, > > Please review > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~**ksrini/7166955

Re: Pass a pointer to JNI_GetCreatedJavaVMs() instead of null / review please

Hi Vitaly, The JNI Spec says the following: "Returns |JNI_OK| on success; returns a suitable JNI error code (a negative number) on failure." It doesn't really matter, if others feel strongly about it, I will change it. Kumar Hi Kumar, Based on the discussion, should it check for a (re

Re: Pass a pointer to JNI_GetCreatedJavaVMs() instead of null / review please

I agree it doesn't really matter; using JNI_OK is arguably slightly better as it (1) doesn't assume anything about what non negative value it'll assume and (2) uses the constant defined specifically for this, but I agree it's insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Cheers Sent from my phone

Re: Review Request for CR : 7144861 RMI activation tests are too slow

Hi Olivier, I think we agree that there's a lot more cleanup that could be done here, but that we should just press forward with this and postpone the cleanup until later. I don't really like postponing things but I don't want to hold up the nice optimizations you've done. I do have one poin

Re: Pass a pointer to JNI_GetCreatedJavaVMs() instead of null

On 7/05/2012 11:27 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: On 07/05/2012 11:39, David Holmes wrote: The spec doesn't say anything but the implementation does check for NULL. I think this is a spec issue rather than a code issue (and I think hotspot-runtime owns the JNI spec so cc'ed). It is common practice for

Re: Pass a pointer to JNI_GetCreatedJavaVMs() instead of null / review please

Hi Kumar, On 8/05/2012 6:21 AM, Kumar Srinivasan wrote: Hi, Please review http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ksrini/7166955 Thanks for jumping on checking the return value. Actually hotspot can never return an error here so it was much less of an issue than I thought. David - Thanks Kumar

Re: Review Request for CR : 7144861 RMI activation tests are too slow

On 8/05/2012 8:29 AM, Stuart Marks wrote: I think we agree that there's a lot more cleanup that could be done here, but that we should just press forward with this and postpone the cleanup until later. I don't really like postponing things but I don't want to hold up the nice optimizations you've