Re: RFR 8042123: Support default and static interface methods in JDI, JDWP and JDB (was 8031195)

It looks good again. Thanks, Serguei On 4/29/14 7:44 AM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote: This is a take two on addressing this issue. The previous attempt caused build breakage when building SA-JDI because of non-implemented abstract methods. Because of "tainted" issue number I had to make a new clo

Re: RFR 8042096: Backout JDK-8042091

Sorry, I did not catch this too. It is hard to catch, testing must be our friend here. Thanks, Serguei On 4/29/14 5:33 AM, Staffan Larsen wrote: Looks good. Very sorry I didn’t catch this during review. /Staffan On 29 apr 2014, at 13:42, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote: Please, review this emerg

Re: RFR 8042123: Support default and static interface methods in JDI, JDWP and JDB (was 8031195)

Let’s try it again. Reviewed. /Staffan On 29 apr 2014, at 16:44, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote: > This is a take two on addressing this issue. > The previous attempt caused build breakage when building SA-JDI because of > non-implemented abstract methods. > Because of "tainted" issue number I had t

RFR 8042123: Support default and static interface methods in JDI, JDWP and JDB (was 8031195)

This is a take two on addressing this issue. The previous attempt caused build breakage when building SA-JDI because of non-implemented abstract methods. Because of "tainted" issue number I had to make a new clone. Issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8042123 Webrev: http://cr.open

Re: RFR: 8039173 Propagate errors from Diagnostic Commands as exceptions in the attach framework

Thanks for the comments. I have updated the review with both. webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sla/8039173/webrev.05/ I do not actually have any Reviewers for this change. Anyone willing to take it on is much appreciated. Thanks, /Staffan On 29 apr 2014, at 15:22, Alan Bateman wrote: > O

Re: RFR: 8039173 Propagate errors from Diagnostic Commands as exceptions in the attach framework

On 16/04/2014 10:21, Staffan Larsen wrote: On 14 apr 2014, at 17:17, Alan Bateman wrote: : For someone looking at the Virtualmachine API then I don't think the javadoc is clear enough to understand when one might get the specific AttachOperationFailedException vs. the more general IOExceptio

Re: RFR 8042096: Backout JDK-8042091

Backed out - #276c2688450d Thanks for the patience! -JB- On 29.4.2014 14:33, Staffan Larsen wrote: Looks good. Very sorry I didn’t catch this during review. /Staffan On 29 apr 2014, at 13:42, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote: Please, review this emergency backout. The changes introduced in fix

Re: RFR 8042096: Backout JDK-8042091

Looks good. Very sorry I didn’t catch this during review. /Staffan On 29 apr 2014, at 13:42, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote: > Please, review this emergency backout. > > The changes introduced in fix for JDK-8042091 didn't contain SA-JDI > implementation in hotspot causing JDK build breakage. The

RFR 8042096: Backout JDK-8042091

Please, review this emergency backout. The changes introduced in fix for JDK-8042091 didn't contain SA-JDI implementation in hotspot causing JDK build breakage. The JDK part needs to be backed out till the hotspot side is ready to accept the changed APIs. The change is generated by 'hg backou

Re: RFR: [8040790] TEST_BUG: tools/javac/innerClassFile/Driver.sh fails to cleanup files after it

Thanks! On 29.04.2014 14:49, Lance @ Oracle wrote: This looks ok Lance Andersen| Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037 Oracle Java Engineering 1 Network Drive Burlington, MA 01803 lance.ander...@oracle.com

Re: RFR: [8040790] TEST_BUG: tools/javac/innerClassFile/Driver.sh fails to cleanup files after it

This looks ok Lance Andersen| Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037 Oracle Java Engineering 1 Network Drive Burlington, MA 01803 lance.ander...@oracle.com Sent from my iPad On Apr 29, 2014, at 4:48 AM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote: > Hello! > > This is a 7u-only test-stabilization on

Re: RFR 8031195: Support default and static interface methods in JDI, JDWP and JDB

Very nice! Good to go. /Staffan On 29 apr 2014, at 10:57, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote: > On 29.4.2014 10:12, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote: >> Hi Jaroslav, >> >> make/data/jdwp/jdwp.spec >> Just a minor comment: an extra space or a TAB in the "staticmethod": >> >> 1150 (Error IN

Re: RFR 8031195: Support default and static interface methods in JDI, JDWP and JDB

On 29.4.2014 10:12, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote: Hi Jaroslav, make/data/jdwp/jdwp.spec Just a minor comment: an extra space or a TAB in the "staticmethod": 1150 (Error INVALID_METHODID "methodID is not the ID of a static method in " Gone ... http://cr.openjdk.java.net/

RFR: [8040790] TEST_BUG: tools/javac/innerClassFile/Driver.sh fails to cleanup files after it

Hello! This is a 7u-only test-stabilization one-line fix. The test was reported to not clean after itself, which sometimes causes problems. Would you please help review the fix? BUGURL: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8040790 WEBREV: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8040790/0/we

Re: RFR 8031195: Support default and static interface methods in JDI, JDWP and JDB

Hi Jaroslav, make/data/jdwp/jdwp.spec Just a minor comment: an extra space or a TAB in the "staticmethod": 1150 (Error INVALID_METHODID "methodID is not the ID of a static method in " Reviewed. Thanks, Serguei On 4/29/14 12:57 AM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote: Hi Serguei, On 2

Re: RFR 8031195: Support default and static interface methods in JDI, JDWP and JDB

Hi Serguei, On 29.4.2014 01:02, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote: Hi Jaroslav, I looked at the new webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8031195/webrev.05/ The fixes look fine to me modulo comments below. This is a great job in general. Yeah, I had great support from you guys when

Re: RFR 8031195: Support default and static interface methods in JDI, JDWP and JDB

On 28.4.2014 19:45, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote: On 4/28/14 3:59 AM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote: Thanks Dan! On 25.4.2014 20:08, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote: On 4/24/14 6:52 AM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote: Please, review the following patch: Issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8031195 We