Consider the following code:
import java.util.Arrays;
import java.util.List;
public class ArraysAsListTest {
public static void main(final String[] args) throws Exception {
final List someList = Arrays.asList(new String[] {"a"});
System.out.println("Removed? " + someList.remo
Hello,
Cleaning out an old bug, please review the CSR and fix for:
JDK-5075463 : (enum) Serialized Form javadoc for java.lang.Enum is
misleading
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/5075463.0/
CSR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8209524
The abstract class java.lang.Enum imp
Hello,
Please review the changes to address:
8176425: Add radix indication in NumberFormatException message for
Integer.decode
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8176425.0/
Basically the radix used for parsing an int or long is passed along to a
factory method in the NumberFormatExcep
Thanks for the information. Not sure what's the best option we can do
in 8u. I think it's acceptable to have a fix that works in the
current context (like empty static method).
Thoughts?
Mandy
On 8/14/18 4:22 PM, Hans Boehm wrote:
I haven't looked at the details here, but comparing against a
Looks good to me ... but ...
my intent was that the self-interrupt was added in __addition__ to
interrupt by other thread, because there is often different code to handle
pre-existing interrupt. As with BlockingQueueTest.testTimedPollWithOffer.
public void run() {
Hi Bernard,
On Aug 14, 2018, at 4:13 AM, B. Blaser wrote:
> Seems quite good to me, last notes:
>
> 1) dealing with 'stat/stat64' in 'UnixFileSystem_md.c' might be
> outside the scope of this fix (?) even if fully pertinent per [1].
It might be slightly out of scope but I think it’s OK as stat
Hi Martin,
Updated with suggestions:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-timeout-8208715/index.html
On 8/14/2018 1:22 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
Thanks, Roger. I approve this version, although as always I have
comments.
520 private static native void waitForTimeoutInterruptibly(
Where in Makefile do we add this - to suppress deprecation warnings - to our
personal builds.
Thanks.
MR
Thanks, Roger. I approve this version, although as always I have comments.
520 private static native void waitForTimeoutInterruptibly(
521 long handle, long timeout);
The units being used should be obvious from the signature - rename timeout
to timeoutMillis. But even better is to
Hi Martin,
I updated the webrev with the suggestions.
On 8/14/2018 10:47 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
hi Roger,
509 if (deadline <= 0) {
510 deadline = Long.MAX_VALUE;
511 }
This must be wrong. Nanotime wraparound is normal in this sort of code.
ok, this reader didn't make that assumption
-
Hi Adam,
Have you tried Peter's suggestion if an empty static method taking an
Object parameter? Does it work for you?
Your proposed approach seems fine and I would suggest to put the
check in a static keepAlive method that will make it explicitly.
Mandy
On 8/10/18 8:42 AM, Adam Farley8 wrote
hi Roger,
509 if (deadline <= 0) { 510 deadline =
Long.MAX_VALUE; 511 }
This must be wrong. Nanotime wraparound is normal in this sort of code.
---
We ought to be able to delegate the fiddling with nanos to
TimeUnit.timedWait.
Does it work to simply call NANOSECO
A new method MethodHandles.Lookup defineClass() was added recently.
But what about a defineResource? For adding a new resource to the
classpath (such as a .txt file). I just needed such a thing, and
though undoubtedly rare, all the recommended solutions use reflection
and setAccessible().
thanks
S
Please review a fix for Process.waitFor(Long.MAX_VALUE,MILLIS).
Catch wrap around in very large wait times and saturate at Long.MAX_VALUE.
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-timeout-8208715/
Issue:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8208715
Thanks, Roger
Hi Alan,
Thanks for looking at this and apologies for the delayed response (c/o
our annual Red Hat OpenJDK team meeting taking place all last week).
On 06/08/18 10:29, Alan Bateman wrote:
> The current iteration, to introduce new MapMode values, is not too bad
> but it makes me wonder if we coul
Seems quite good to me, last notes:
1) dealing with 'stat/stat64' in 'UnixFileSystem_md.c' might be
outside the scope of this fix (?) even if fully pertinent per [1]. In
the same file, I think '#define dirent dirent64' is probably missing
for AIX.
2) I guess '#if defined(_AIX) ...' is now missing
16 matches
Mail list logo
