Thanks, David!
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 8:21 AM, David Holmes wrote:
> Test update looks good!
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>
> On 14/06/2018 9:30 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> hopefully last changes, with feedback added from Coleen and David.
>>
>> Only changes in the provided regression t
Test update looks good!
Thanks,
David
On 14/06/2018 9:30 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
Hi all,
hopefully last changes, with feedback added from Coleen and David.
Only changes in the provided regression test: I run it now with
-Dsun.reflect.noInflation to make the test independent from the
reflectio
Thank you Serguei!
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 9:14 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com
wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> The update looks good to me.
>
> Thanks,
> Serguei
>
>
>
> On 6/14/18 04:30, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> hopefully last changes, with feedback added from Coleen and David.
>>
>> Only
Hi Thomas,
The update looks good to me.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 6/14/18 04:30, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
Hi all,
hopefully last changes, with feedback added from Coleen and David.
Only changes in the provided regression test: I run it now with
-Dsun.reflect.noInflation to make the test independent fro
Thanks Coleen!
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018, 18:04 wrote:
>
> This was a good find of David's. Thank you for fixing the test.
> Coleen
>
> On 6/14/18 7:30 AM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > hopefully last changes, with feedback added from Coleen and David.
> >
> > Only changes in the provided
This was a good find of David's. Thank you for fixing the test.
Coleen
On 6/14/18 7:30 AM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
Hi all,
hopefully last changes, with feedback added from Coleen and David.
Only changes in the provided regression test: I run it now with
-Dsun.reflect.noInflation to make the tes
Hi all,
hopefully last changes, with feedback added from Coleen and David.
Only changes in the provided regression test: I run it now with
-Dsun.reflect.noInflation to make the test independent from the
reflection inflation threshold. I also corrected the copyright dates.
Delta:
http://cr.openj
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 7:11 AM, David Holmes wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> Just a nit in the test:
>
> 54 // Do some reflection, enough times to hit the
> sun.reflect.inflationThreshold and force
> 55 // generation of reflection accessor classes.
>...
> 59 for (int i =
Hi Thomas,
Just a nit in the test:
54 // Do some reflection, enough times to hit the
sun.reflect.inflationThreshold and force
55 // generation of reflection accessor classes.
...
59 for (int i = 0; i < 100; i ++) {
The default threshold is only 15. The test is
Hi Serguei,
thank you for your review!
You are right, a regression test makes sense here. I wrote one. See
updated webrev (only added the test, nothing else did change):
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stuefe/webrevs/8203343-VM.metaspace-show-reflection-invocation-targets/webrev.01/webrev/
I am re-
Hi Thomas,
It looks good to me.
But I'm not an expert in the area of Generated Accessors.
How was this tested?
Does it make sense to add a unit test for this?
Thanks,
Serguei
On 6/6/18 09:05, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
Dear all,
may I please have feedback and if possible reviews for this small add
Could I have a second review, please?
Thanks a lot, Thomas
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 7:36 AM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
> Ping.
>
> jdk-submit tests came back clean.
>
> Thanks, Thomas
>
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> may I please have feedback and if possible
Ping.
jdk-submit tests came back clean.
Thanks, Thomas
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> may I please have feedback and if possible reviews for this small addition:
>
> CR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8203343
> Webrev:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Kirk Pepperdine
wrote:
>
>> On Jun 6, 2018, at 6:05 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> may I please have feedback and if possible reviews for this small addition:
>
>
> I can see the need to visualize this but the output looks easily parsable so
> it al
> On Jun 6, 2018, at 6:05 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> may I please have feedback and if possible reviews for this small addition:
I can see the need to visualize this but the output looks easily parsable so it
all looks good from my perspective.
Not an official review
— Kirk
Dear all,
may I please have feedback and if possible reviews for this small addition:
CR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8203343
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stuefe/webrevs/8203343-VM.metaspace-show-reflection-invocation-targets/webrev.00/webrev/
(Note: this patch goes atop of
16 matches
Mail list logo
