On Fri, 31 May 2024 14:34:16 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
>> Sonia Zaldana Calles has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Decreasing diff size addressing unnecessary changes
>
> Hi all,
>
> I think there's some consensus
On Fri, 31 May 2024 14:34:16 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
>> Sonia Zaldana Calles has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Decreasing diff size addressing unnecessary changes
>
> Hi all,
>
> I think there's some consensus
On Fri, 31 May 2024 14:34:16 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
>> Sonia Zaldana Calles has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Decreasing diff size addressing unnecessary changes
>
> Hi all,
>
> I think there's some consensus
On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 13:17:11 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
> Curious, why tier 1 to 3 specifically? Is there anything specific in tier 3
> you want to have tested?
I think just prudent to run more tests when touching the launcher as it has
options that aren't tested much in tier1. Shouldn't be an
On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 12:59:54 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> I'll file follow up issue(s) and also trigger CI testing of this PR.
Thanks, the regressions fixed here are important to fix. It's unfortunate there
the original changes weren't changes weren't caught by tests. There is a good
test
On Fri, 31 May 2024 14:34:16 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
>> Sonia Zaldana Calles has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Decreasing diff size addressing unnecessary changes
>
> Hi all,
>
> I think there's some consensus
On Fri, 31 May 2024 14:34:16 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I think there's some consensus that we need some follow up cleanup issues for
> the JNI spec, renaming constants, fixing return codes, etc.
>
> Seeing how that grows the scope of the issue quite a bit, I'd like to
On Thu, 9 May 2024 19:52:12 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> This PR aims to fix
>> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>>
>> I think the regression got introduced in
>> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>>
>> In the
On Thu, 9 May 2024 19:52:12 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> This PR aims to fix
>> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>>
>> I think the regression got introduced in
>> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>>
>> In the
On Tue, 14 May 2024 07:14:09 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
> but it does not state explicitly that an exception is thrown on every error,
> or whether there are cases where the API can return NULL but not throw an
> exception, or vice versa.
>
> So, I'd check for both. Or, if we think that both
On Mon, 13 May 2024 18:01:25 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
> > This mostly looks good. I'm just puzzled CHECK_EXCEPTION_NULL_FAIL. The JNI
> > functions GetStaticMethodID, GetMethodID and NewObject return NULL with a
> > pending exception when they fail. So I would expect
> >
On Sun, 12 May 2024 18:52:30 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> This mostly looks good. I'm just puzzled CHECK_EXCEPTION_NULL_FAIL. The JNI
> functions GetStaticMethodID, GetMethodID and NewObject return NULL with a
> pending exception when they fail. So I would expect CHECK_EXCEPTION_NULL_FAIL
> to
On Thu, 9 May 2024 19:52:12 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> This PR aims to fix
>> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>>
>> I think the regression got introduced in
>> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>>
>> In the
On Thu, 9 May 2024 19:52:12 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> This PR aims to fix
>> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>>
>> I think the regression got introduced in
>> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>>
>> In the
> Hi folks,
>
> This PR aims to fix
> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>
> I think the regression got introduced in
> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>
> In the issue linked above,
>
15 matches
Mail list logo