Le 12/05/2010 02:20, John Rose a écrit :
> On May 11, 2010, at 4:49 PM, Rémi Forax wrote:
>
>
>> I only use jdk7 binaries and I haven't found the time to test
>> with the mlvm repository.
>>
>
> OK. I'm about to promote some new code to JDK7 and I would like to know ASAP
> if it breaks
On May 11, 2010, at 4:49 PM, Rémi Forax wrote:
> I only use jdk7 binaries and I haven't found the time to test
> with the mlvm repository.
OK. I'm about to promote some new code to JDK7 and I would like to know ASAP
if it breaks or fixes your code. Can you send me a JAR file to run as a test?
Le 12/05/2010 01:02, John Rose a écrit :
> On May 11, 2010, at 3:27 AM, Rémi Forax wrote:
>
>
>> I am currently not a able to call that method because converting
>> an int to an object doesn't work.
>>
>
> This feels like version skew. I'm trying to reproduce it locally.
>
> If your code
On May 11, 2010, at 3:27 AM, Rémi Forax wrote:
> I am currently not a able to call that method because converting
> an int to an object doesn't work.
This feels like version skew. I'm trying to reproduce it locally.
If your code doesn't work then my unit tests shouldn't either; but they do wor
On 2010-05-11 12:27, Rémi Forax wrote:
> Le 11/05/2010 09:31, Raffaello Giulietti a écrit :
>> Yes, this seems a bug to me, too.
>>
>> What about converting to Integer.class instead of int.class and letting
>> the boxing duties to the language compiler?
>>
>> Raffaello
>>
Mmmm, I see.
Howeve
Le 11/05/2010 09:31, Raffaello Giulietti a écrit :
> Yes, this seems a bug to me, too.
>
> What about converting to Integer.class instead of int.class and letting
> the boxing duties to the language compiler?
>
> Raffaello
>
This code is extracted from a bigger code that try to avoid boxing
if
Yes, this seems a bug to me, too.
What about converting to Integer.class instead of int.class and letting
the boxing duties to the language compiler?
Raffaello
On 2010-05-10 21:11, Rémi Forax wrote:
> For me it's a new bug.
> I have checked with jdk7 latest binaries
> I will check with the mlvm