On 4/29/13 7:09 AM, Staffan Larsen wrote:
You are right. I was just being lazy.
Update webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sla/8003671/webrev.01/
This change looks fine to me.
Mandy
Thanks,
/Staffan
On 29 apr 2013, at 15:43, Rickard Bäckman<rickard.back...@oracle.com> wrote:
Actually, even better alternatives are Arrays.copyOf or array.clone();
/R
On Apr 29, 2013, at 3:15 PM, Rickard Bäckman wrote:
Staffan,
the change looks good, however I would be happy if we actually used the
arraycopy instead :)
/R
On Apr 29, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Staffan Larsen wrote:
On 29 apr 2013, at 14:15, Dmitry Samersoff<dmitry.samers...@oracle.com> wrote:
Staffan,
1. bug is not available (yet?) on bugs.sun.com
It'll probably take a couple of hours (as usual).
2. you probably can use arraycopy routine.
I could, but I stuck to the same code as was already in the class. It's not
performance critical.
/Staffan
-Dmitry
On 2013-04-29 14:54, Staffan Larsen wrote:
Please review the following small fix to avoid exposing an internal
representation.
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sla/8003671/webrev.00/
bug: http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=8003671
Thanks,
/Staffan
--
Dmitry Samersoff
Oracle Java development team, Saint Petersburg, Russia
* Give Rabbit time, and he'll always get the answer
