On 1/12/2014 7:16 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
On 11/27/2014 09:33 AM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
On 11/27/2014 01:43 AM, David Holmes wrote:
On 26/11/2014 10:57 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Please, review the following test change
Issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8064441
Webrev
Hi Staffan, thanks for your feedback.
The fingerprint algorithm may be either:
- added to javac as an argument, in order to calculate during
compilation and inject that to the classfile format "new attribute"
- a new tool provided by JDK, say "javafp" that would be allowed for
standalone calls
Hi Everybody,
Please review:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8042397/webrev.08/
The test is ported from VM testbase to JTREG, added separate class
intended to provide standard framework for launching slave application.
Part of this fix will be moved to testlibrary after it bakes for
On 12/02/2014 10:37 AM, David Holmes wrote:
On 1/12/2014 7:16 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
On 11/27/2014 09:33 AM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
On 11/27/2014 01:43 AM, David Holmes wrote:
On 26/11/2014 10:57 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Please, review the following test change
Issue : https://bu
Hi,
After some further discussion we the GC team we have decided to split up
this patch further to make it easier to push.
Since this patch covers all GCs and multiple changes are on their way in
creating conflicts in the different GCs it is hard to push this in a
single commit.
So to make su
Hi,
As noted in the original thread [1] about this event we split up the
commit in 4 different steps. This is the first step that only adds the
event and methods to send them, but the usage will be added separately
for the 3 GCs using PLABs.
Bug (sub-task): https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/brow
Please review the small fix.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8028773/webrev.01/
Added more missed exception checks to sadis.c
--
Dmitry Samersoff
Oracle Java development team, Saint Petersburg, Russia
* I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the sources.
Hi,
Could I please have a review of this small fix.
bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8044591
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ykantser/8044591/webrev.00/
Thanks,
Katja
These two lines are wrong. The "!= NULL” should not be there:
241 if (!(*env)->ExceptionOccurred(env) != NULL) {
255 if (!(*env)->ExceptionOccurred(env) != NULL) {
Otherwise looks good.
/Staffan
> On 2 dec 2014, at 20:14, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
>
> Please review the small fix.
>
> htt
Looks good, but the test also needs to be removed from ProblemList.txt.
/Staffan
> On 2 dec 2014, at 20:22, Yekaterina Kantserova
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Could I please have a review of this small fix.
>
> bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8044591
> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.ne
Right! Thank you for the catch!
// Katja
- Original Message -
From: staffan.lar...@oracle.com
To: yekaterina.kantser...@oracle.com
Cc: serviceability-dev@openjdk.java.net
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 8:54:53 PM GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / Bern
/ Rome / Stockholm / Vienna
Subject:
Staffan,
Thanks!
Will fix it.
-Dmitry
On 2014-12-02 22:51, Staffan Larsen wrote:
> These two lines are wrong. The "!= NULL” should not be there:
>
> 241 if (!(*env)->ExceptionOccurred(env) != NULL) {
> 255 if (!(*env)->ExceptionOccurred(env) != NULL) {
>
> Otherwise looks good.
>
> /St
Dmitry,
It is good in general modulo Staffan's comments.
There are some inconsistencies:
- the ExceptionOccurred(env) is compared to != NULL (which make the
logic more complex)
in some places and no such comparison (implicit comparison
instead) in others
- two different forms of check
The fix still looks good to me.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 12/1/14 6:39 PM, Chris Plummer wrote:
Sorry about the long delay in getting back to this. I ran into two
separate JPRT issues that were preventing me from testing these
changes, plus I was on vacation last week. Here's an updated webrev.
I'm
14 matches
Mail list logo
