Re: RR 6313816: SA: jstack -m fails on Win32 : UnalignedAddressException

Thanks Poonam! On 16/05/13 02:26, Poonam Bajaj wrote: Hi Kevin, The changes look good. Thanks, Poonam On 5/7/2013 5:36 PM, Kevin Walls wrote: Hi - I'd like to get another rev

Re: RFR [8014676] Java debugger may fail to run

Looks good! /Staffan On 15 maj 2013, at 23:05, Ivan Gerasimov wrote: > Hello everybody! > > Would you please help with reviewing the fix? > The fix is for jdk8. It is also applicable to jdk7 and will be proposed, if > it's accepted here. > > WEBREV: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~robm/8014676/w

Re: Fix for 8014669, build flags issue

David's change looks good to me. /Staffan On 16 maj 2013, at 03:37, BILL PITTORE wrote: > I'm fine with these changes. I can commit if someone can do the push if you > think we need to get this in tonight. > > bill > > On 5/15/2013 8:43 PM, David Holmes wrote: >> Hi Bill, >> >> On 16/05/201

Re: RFR(XS): 4965252: JvmtiExport::post_raw_field_modification jni ref handling is odd

David, On May 16, 2013, at 7:12 AM, David Holmes wrote: > Hi Rickard, > > On 15/05/2013 7:37 PM, Rickard Bäckman wrote: >> can I please have this change reviewed? >> >> My interpretation is that this isn't really a bug, since the parameter >> sig_type is never set to [. > > Right - it looks l

Re: RFR(XS): 4965252: JvmtiExport::post_raw_field_modification jni ref handling is odd

Hi Rickard, On 15/05/2013 7:37 PM, Rickard Bäckman wrote: can I please have this change reviewed? My interpretation is that this isn't really a bug, since the parameter sig_type is never set to [. Right - it looks like a bug visually but turns out to be dead code. FYI the "sig_type == '['"

Re: RFR(XS): 4965252: JvmtiExport::post_raw_field_modification jni ref handling is odd

Serguei, thank you for the review! /R On May 15, 2013, at 4:58 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote: > Hi Rickard, > > I think, the fix is good. > But the code that was fixed was harmless as a memory leak > described in the report never really happened. > It is still a nice clean up. :) > > T

Re: Fix for 8014669, build flags issue

On 16/05/2013 11:37 AM, BILL PITTORE wrote: I'm fine with these changes. I can commit if someone can do the push if you think we need to get this in tonight. I can push for you but I don't think this will get in "tonight" nor in time for this week's build. We also need a backport for hs24.

hg: jdk8/tl/jdk: 5 new changesets

Changeset: 2ec31660cc0e Author:valeriep Date: 2013-05-07 14:04 -0700 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/2ec31660cc0e 8010134: A finalizer in sun.security.pkcs11.wrapper.PKCS11 perhaps should be protected Summary: Change the finalize method of PKCS11 class to be protect

Re: Fix for 8014669, build flags issue

I'm fine with these changes. I can commit if someone can do the push if you think we need to get this in tonight. bill On 5/15/2013 8:43 PM, David Holmes wrote: Hi Bill, On 16/05/2013 10:05 AM, David Holmes wrote: Hi Bill, (re-fixed the build-dev alias) On 16/05/2013 6:48 AM, BILL PITTORE

Re: RR 6313816: SA: jstack -m fails on Win32 : UnalignedAddressException

Hi Kevin, The changes look good. Thanks, Poonam On 5/7/2013 5:36 PM, Kevin Walls wrote: Hi - I'd like to get another review from an openjdk user/reviewer/... Thanks Kevin On 03/05/13 09:3

Re: Fix for 8014669, build flags issue

On 5/15/2013 8:05 PM, David Holmes wrote: Hi Bill, (re-fixed the build-dev alias) On 16/05/2013 6:48 AM, BILL PITTORE wrote: Some architecture dependent flags do not make it through to the libjsig.so and libsaproc.so makefiles. As a result, the libs are not compiled/linked with the correct fla

Re: Fix for 8014669, build flags issue

Hi Bill, On 16/05/2013 10:05 AM, David Holmes wrote: Hi Bill, (re-fixed the build-dev alias) On 16/05/2013 6:48 AM, BILL PITTORE wrote: Some architecture dependent flags do not make it through to the libjsig.so and libsaproc.so makefiles. As a result, the libs are not compiled/linked with the

Re: Fix for 8014669, build flags issue

Hi Bill, (re-fixed the build-dev alias) On 16/05/2013 6:48 AM, BILL PITTORE wrote: Some architecture dependent flags do not make it through to the libjsig.so and libsaproc.so makefiles. As a result, the libs are not compiled/linked with the correct flags for that particular variant. Fix is to m

Re: RFR [8014676] Java debugger may fail to run

Looks good for me! (not a reviewer) -Dmitry On 2013-05-16 01:05, Ivan Gerasimov wrote: > Hello everybody! > > Would you please help with reviewing the fix? > The fix is for jdk8. It is also applicable to jdk7 and will be proposed, > if it's accepted here. > > WEBREV: http://cr.openjdk.java.ne

Re: Fix for 8014669, build flags issue

Adding Serviceability since libsaproc.so belongs to the Serviceability Team. Dan On 5/15/13 2:48 PM, BILL PITTORE wrote: Some architecture dependent flags do not make it through to the libjsig.so and libsaproc.so makefiles. As a result, the libs are not compiled/linked with the correct flags

RFR [8014676] Java debugger may fail to run

Hello everybody! Would you please help with reviewing the fix? The fix is for jdk8. It is also applicable to jdk7 and will be proposed, if it's accepted here. WEBREV: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~robm/8014676/webrev.01/ BUG: http://bugs.s

Re: RR(S): 8014420 Default JDP address does not match the one assigned by IANA

Looks fine to me. -JB- On 05/15/2013 10:03 PM, Erik Gahlin wrote: > Looks good. > > /Erik > > Dmitry Samersoff skrev 5/15/13 9:08 PM: >> Please, >> >> Review a small patch, changing defaults for JDP to one assigned by IANA. >> >> All credential belongs to Florian Weimer >> >> http://cr.openjdk.

Re: jmx-dev [PATCH] JDK-8005472: com/sun/jmx/remote/NotificationMarshalVersions/TestSerializationMismatch.sh failed on windows

On Wed 15 May 2013 12:44:57 AM CEST, Stuart Marks wrote: > Hi, sorry for the delay in my reply, and thanks for the update. > > A timeout of 30 seconds should be sufficient. > > Regarding duplicates: I was just thinking, if you're expecting exactly > 10 notifications, you should ensure that you rece

Re: RR(S): 8014420 Default JDP address does not match the one assigned by IANA

Looks good. /Erik Dmitry Samersoff skrev 5/15/13 9:08 PM: Please, Review a small patch, changing defaults for JDP to one assigned by IANA. All credential belongs to Florian Weimer http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/8014420.JDP/webrev.01/ -Dmitry

Re: RR(S): 8014420 Default JDP address does not match the one assigned by IANA

Florian, Thanks! -Dmitry On 2013-05-15 23:21, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 05/15/2013 09:08 PM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote: > >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/8014420.JDP/webrev.01/ > > There's a typo in the test script, "failing": > > + echo "ERROR: Test app not started. Please, check

Re: RR(S): 8014420 Default JDP address does not match the one assigned by IANA

On 05/15/2013 09:08 PM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote: > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/8014420.JDP/webrev.01/ There's a typo in the test script, "failing": + echo "ERROR: Test app not started. Please, check machine resources before failing a bug." I'm not sure about the comma, "Please

RR(S): 8014420 Default JDP address does not match the one assigned by IANA

Please, Review a small patch, changing defaults for JDP to one assigned by IANA. All credential belongs to Florian Weimer http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/8014420.JDP/webrev.01/ -Dmitry -- Dmitry Samersoff Oracle Java development team, Saint Petersburg, Russia * I would love to change t

hg: jdk8/tl/langtools: 8006879: Detection of windows in sjavac fails.

Changeset: 445b8b5ae9f4 Author:jjg Date: 2013-05-15 10:39 -0700 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/langtools/rev/445b8b5ae9f4 8006879: Detection of windows in sjavac fails. Reviewed-by: jjg Contributed-by: erik.joels...@oracle.com ! src/share/classes/com/sun/tools/sjavac/serve

hg: jdk8/tl/jdk: 8014677: Correct docs warning for Objects.requireNonNull(T, Supplier)

Changeset: bad8f5237f10 Author:darcy Date: 2013-05-15 09:54 -0700 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/bad8f5237f10 8014677: Correct docs warning for Objects.requireNonNull(T, Supplier) Reviewed-by: alanb ! src/share/classes/java/util/Objects.java

Re: RFR(XS): 4965252: JvmtiExport::post_raw_field_modification jni ref handling is odd

Hi Rickard, I think, the fix is good. But the code that was fixed was harmless as a memory leak described in the report never really happened. It is still a nice clean up. :) Thanks, Serguei On 5/15/13 2:37 AM, Rickard Bäckman wrote: Hi all, can I please have this change reviewed? My interpr

hg: jdk8/tl/jdk: 8013730: JSR 310 DateTime API Updates III

Changeset: ef04044f77d2 Author:sherman Date: 2013-05-15 07:48 -0700 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/ef04044f77d2 8013730: JSR 310 DateTime API Updates III Summary: Integration of JSR310 Date/Time API update III Reviewed-by: naoto Contributed-by: scolebou...@joda.org,

hg: jdk8/tl/langtools: 3 new changesets

Changeset: 05ec778794d0 Author:mcimadamore Date: 2013-05-15 14:00 +0100 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/langtools/rev/05ec778794d0 8012003: Method diagnostics resolution need to be simplified in some cases Summary: Unfold method resolution diagnostics when they mention error

RFR(XS): 4965252: JvmtiExport::post_raw_field_modification jni ref handling is odd

Hi all, can I please have this change reviewed? My interpretation is that this isn't really a bug, since the parameter sig_type is never set to [. The suggested change is to remove the check for [ in the if and add an assert. I also created a boolean to track handle creation to simplify cleanup

hg: jdk8/tl/langtools: 8004133: Provide javax.lang.model.* implementation backed by core reflection

Changeset: bcd927639039 Author:darcy Date: 2013-05-15 00:00 -0700 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/langtools/rev/bcd927639039 8004133: Provide javax.lang.model.* implementation backed by core reflection Summary: Joint work by darcy and jfranck to provide sample code for JEP 1