On Fri, 7 May 2021 12:17:11 GMT, Vyom Tewari wrote:
>> RandomAccessFile.length() method for block device return always 0
>
> Vyom Tewari has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> fixed assigning -1 to uint64_t
Could required os = lin
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 02:52:05 GMT, Hui Shi wrote:
> …AccessorImpl object
>
> We met real problem when using protobuf with option optimized for code size,
> detail in JBS https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8255883
>
> Optimize solution is adding a new boolean field to
On Sun, 15 Nov 2020 07:25:30 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> After review PR/commit title is changed to align with JBS title to add ready
>> label
>
> Can you sync up your branch (the bot is saying that it's 140 commits behind
> the main line)? I can sponsor once it has been tested with an up to da
eration, compared with method
> accessor generate, this cost is trivial.
Hui Shi has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a
rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought in by the
merge/rebase. The pull request contains one additional commit
On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 23:37:46 GMT, Hui Shi wrote:
> …ructorAccessorImpl object
>
> duplicate with https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/1070, try trigger test
> with new PR
This pull request has been closed without being integrated.
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/1213
On Sat, 14 Nov 2020 07:40:07 GMT, Hui Shi wrote:
>> @huishi-hs Testing should start automatically, and will appear here when you
>> push to any branch in your fork that is not `master`:
>> https://github.com/huishi-hs/jdk/actions (unless you disabled this in the
>> rep
eration, compared with method
> accessor generate, this cost is trivial.
Hui Shi has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and previous commits
have been removed. The incremental views will show differences compared to the
previous content of the PR. The pull request contains one new
On Sat, 14 Nov 2020 12:11:52 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> @JornVernee How can "ready" label be added to this PR? This PR has been
>> reviewed. Would you help on this?
>
> @huishi-hs See the "Integration blocker" section in the PR body; you have a
> JBS issue and PR title mismatch.
After review P
On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 16:02:42 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> Thanks all! May this test-request get approved?
>
> Notice that the `/test` command is currently un-available (some
> implementation concerns are still under consideration). As an alternative,
> GitHub actions can be used to do basic autom
On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 16:02:42 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> Thanks all! May this test-request get approved?
>
> Notice that the `/test` command is currently un-available (some
> implementation concerns are still under consideration). As an alternative,
> GitHub actions can be used to do basic autom
On Sat, 14 Nov 2020 00:28:58 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> @JornVernee
>> Could you please help approve and start tier1 test?
>> This is same PR with https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/1070
>
> @huishi-hs Testing should start automatically, and will appear here when you
> push to any branch in y
On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 23:37:46 GMT, Hui Shi wrote:
> …ructorAccessorImpl object
>
> duplicate with https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/1070, try trigger test
> with new PR
@JornVernee
Could you please help approve and start tier1 test?
This is same PR with https://github.com/open
…ructorAccessorImpl object
duplicate with https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/1070, try trigger test with
new PR
-
Commit messages:
- 8255883: Avoid multiple GeneratedAccessor for same
NativeMethod/ConstructorAccessorImpl object
Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/1213
On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 08:33:30 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Hui Shi has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and previous
>> commits have been removed. The incremental views will show differences
>> compared to the previous content of the PR. The pull request contains
On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 12:23:36 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> @AlanBateman
>>
>>> What is the reason for using an int? I remember there was a suggestion for
>>> three states but two states seems okay so curious why it was changed from
>>> boolean to int.
>>
>> shipilev suggested not to use sub-wo
eration, compared with method
> accessor generate, this cost is trivial.
Hui Shi has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and previous commits
have been removed. The incremental views will show differences compared to the
previous content of the PR. The pull request contains one new
On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 19:12:08 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Hui Shi has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and previous
>> commits have been removed. The incremental views will show differences
>> compared to the previous content of the PR.
>
> src/java.base/sh
On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 18:36:22 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> Hui Shi has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and previous
>> commits have been removed. The incremental views will show differences
>> compared to the previous content of the PR. The pull request co
On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 18:28:11 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> Hui Shi has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and previous
>> commits have been removed. The incremental views will show differences
>> compared to the previous content of the PR. The pull request co
eration, compared with method
> accessor generate, this cost is trivial.
Hui Shi has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and previous commits
have been removed. The incremental views will show differences compared to the
previous content of the PR. The pull request contains one new
eration, compared with method
> accessor generate, this cost is trivial.
Hui Shi has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and previous commits
have been removed. The incremental views will show differences compared to the
previous content of the PR. The pull request contains one new
eration, compared with method
> accessor generate, this cost is trivial.
Hui Shi has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and previous commits
have been removed. The incremental views will show differences compared to the
previous content of the PR. The pull request contains one new
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 08:58:13 GMT, Joel Borggrén-Franck
wrote:
> Are there any benchmarks to compare this accessor with the previous version
> in the presumably common case where there is no or very little contention?
> Edit to clarify: it is stated as "trivial" is this also measured somewhere?
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 14:59:56 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> I do wonder if it makes sense to handle triple-state `int` here: "not yet
>> generated", "generated", "in error"? So that we don't try to generate the
>> accessor over and over again when it is in error?
>
> If we are changing NativeMethod
eration, compared with method
> accessor generate, this cost is trivial.
Hui Shi has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and previous commits
have been removed. The incremental views will show differences compared to the
previous content of the PR. The pull request contains one new
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 14:59:56 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> If we are changing NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke then we should probably do
> NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance at the same time.
Yes, NativeConstructorAccessorImpl should also apply this change.
> Also wondering if we should, w
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 09:05:55 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> …AccessorImpl object
>>
>> We met real problem when using protobuf with option optimized for code size,
>> detail in JBS https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8255883
>>
>> Optimize solution is adding a new boolean field to detect
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 09:02:55 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> …AccessorImpl object
>>
>> We met real problem when using protobuf with option optimized for code size,
>> detail in JBS https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8255883
>>
>> Optimize solution is adding a new boolean field to detect
…AccessorImpl object
We met real problem when using protobuf with option optimized for code size,
detail in JBS https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8255883
Optimize solution is adding a new boolean field to detect concurrent method
accessor generation in same NativeMethodAccessorImpl objec
29 matches
Mail list logo
