Hi Christoph,
in general your change looks good, because the setsockopt man-page on
AIX only defines IPV6_JOIN_GROUP/IPV6_LEAVE_GROUP but not
IPV6_ADD_MEMBERSHIP/IPV6_DROP_MEMBERSHIP. On the other hand I was
surprised that the original code compiled before. Looking into the AIX
headers, I found:
On 31/07/16 22:47, Langer, Christoph wrote:
Hi,
please review these small fixes for Javadoc issues and removal of warnings.
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8162819
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~clanger/webrevs/8162819.1/
Hi Christoph,
The Javadoc changes look good to
Hi Daniel,
the warning is shown by my Eclipse IDE, javac -Xlint does not warn about unused
methods, I think.
So, then the tag @SuppressWarnings("unused") should probably not be used? Or
what's the official OpenJDK standard for this type of warnings?
Thanks
Christoph
> -Original Message---
Hi Volker,
ok, I agree, I should probably hold back this merely cosmetical change for the
moment and take a deeper look at the AIX multicast test failures and which
fixes will be required.
Thanks
Christoph
> -Original Message-
> From: Volker Simonis [mailto:volker.simo...@gmail.com]
>
Hi Christoph,
On 01/08/16 10:43, Langer, Christoph wrote:
Hi Daniel,
the warning is shown by my Eclipse IDE, javac -Xlint does not warn about unused
methods, I think.
So, then the tag @SuppressWarnings("unused") should probably not be used? Or
what's the official OpenJDK standard for this ty
Hello,
please review this test clean-up. Test
sun/net/www/protocol/http/HttpInputStream.java fails intermittently with
stale threads remaining.
I've done some refactoring to make sure that all request data is read,
resources are closed and I also hope test is more readable now.
Webrev:
http:/
A couple of minor issues:
1. I wonder if "vedio" is a typo left from day 1?
26 * @summary http://www.clipstream.com vedio does not play; read() problem
2. "serverSocket != null" checks seem to be useless (serverSocket is final and
initialized in constructor).
87 if (serverSocke
> On 1 Aug 2016, at 12:03, Pavel Rappo wrote:
> ...return len;
>
> 5. I believe we should add 8162876 to @bug
Strictly speaking, we should not. The @bug should capture the bug numbers
that the test exercises the changes for. It is not necessary to include the bug
number for a bug to the tes
