On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:33:41 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>> As the FFM API evolved over time, some parts of the javadoc went out of
>> sync. Now that most of the API is stable, it is a good time to look again at
>> the javadoc as a whole, and bring some more consistency.
>>
>> While most
On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 14:45:48 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
> Btw, besides the other 2 issues this solves (from the other PR), I think this
> also solves: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8255350
Thanks for the reminder - JDK-8255350 is not fixed by this, but by
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14
On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 15:19:51 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>> Btw, besides the other 2 issues this solves (from the other PR), I think
>> this also solves: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8255350
>
>> Btw, besides the other 2 issues this solves (from the other PR), I think
>> this also s
On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:29:07 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>> Maurizio Cimadamore has updated the pull request with a new target base due
>> to a merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 29 commits:
>>
>> - Merge branch 'master' into javadoc_fixes
>> - Fix issue with ArithmeticExce
On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:29:07 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>> Maurizio Cimadamore has updated the pull request with a new target base due
>> to a merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 29 commits:
>>
>> - Merge branch 'master' into javadoc_fixes
>> - Fix issue with ArithmeticExce
On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 11:01:08 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
> This is the same PR as https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/14098, but
> backported to the JDK 21 repo fork.
Btw, besides the other 2 issues this solves (from the other PR), I think this
also solves: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse
On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 11:01:08 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
> This is the same PR as https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/14098, but
> backported to the JDK 21 repo fork.
Already reviewed the other PR.
-
Marked as reviewed by jvernee (Reviewer).
PR Review: https://git.openjdk.or
> As the FFM API evolved over time, some parts of the javadoc went out of sync.
> Now that most of the API is stable, it is a good time to look again at the
> javadoc as a whole, and bring some more consistency.
>
> While most of the changes in this PR are stylistic, I'd like to call out few
>
On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 10:35:09 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>> As the FFM API evolved over time, some parts of the javadoc went out of
>> sync. Now that most of the API is stable, it is a good time to look again at
>> the javadoc as a whole, and bring some more consistency.
>>
>> While most o
On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 18:22:48 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> But, the implementation of `byteOffsetHandle` rejects range elements:
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/14098/files/265e0d5b082ad54d1cadea1d4a8bd844e72e3926#diff-90ecdacbee63a90f6e695a8bb4c1ad69b591602501613a774561c4032f01fb95R352
>>
>
On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 18:20:51 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> Note that the javadoc has been rectified here (as part of the PR) as I think
>> it has always been wrong in the past (probably cut and paste issue from the
>> non-MH version?)
>
> But, the implementation of `byteOffsetHandle` rejects range
On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 13:42:17 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>> Note sure - javadoc says:
>>
>> * @throws IllegalArgumentException if the layout path is not > href="#well-formedness">well-formed for this layout.
>> * @throws IllegalArgumentException if the layout path contains one or
>> mo
On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 13:40:47 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>> FWIW, it looks like this needs `@Test(expectedExceptions =
>> IllegalArgumentException.class)` since range elements are not allowed for
>> `byteOffsetHandle`
>
> Note sure - javadoc says:
>
> * @throws IllegalArgumentException if
On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 20:21:48 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> test/jdk/java/foreign/TestLayoutPaths.java line 125:
>>
>>> 123: }
>>> 124:
>>> 125: public void testByteOffsetHandleRange() {
>>
>> Missing `@Test`?
>
> FWIW, it looks like this needs `@Test(expectedExceptions =
> IllegalArgument
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 20:06:32 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> Maurizio Cimadamore has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Fix wrong link in layout well-formedness doc
>
> test/jdk/java/foreign/TestLayoutPaths.java line 125:
>
>> 123:
> As the FFM API evolved over time, some parts of the javadoc went out of sync.
> Now that most of the API is stable, it is a good time to look again at the
> javadoc as a whole, and bring some more consistency.
>
> While most of the changes in this PR are stylistic, I'd like to call out few
>
On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 11:41:38 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>> As the FFM API evolved over time, some parts of the javadoc went out of
>> sync. Now that most of the API is stable, it is a good time to look again at
>> the javadoc as a whole, and bring some more consistency.
>>
>> While most o
On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 11:07:42 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>> Yeah - I meant what you said - but now that you said it, I also saw how what
>> I've written can be prone to an alternate (and wrong) interpretation. I'll
>> clarify.
>
> Actually, looking back at this I'm not sure it's correct? We
On Mon, 29 May 2023 10:53:52 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>> As the FFM API evolved over time, some parts of the javadoc went out of
>> sync. Now that most of the API is stable, it is a good time to look again at
>> the javadoc as a whole, and bring some more consistency.
>>
>> While most
> As the FFM API evolved over time, some parts of the javadoc went out of sync.
> Now that most of the API is stable, it is a good time to look again at the
> javadoc as a whole, and bring some more consistency.
>
> While most of the changes in this PR are stylistic, I'd like to call out few
>
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 21:02:13 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/foreign/MemoryLayout.java line 418:
>>
>>> 416: *
>>> 417: * @param elements the layout path elements.
>>> 418: * @return a var handle that accesses a memory segment at the
>>> o
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 19:58:49 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> Maurizio Cimadamore has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Fix wrong link in layout well-formedness doc
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/foreign/ValueLayout.java li
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 21:09:12 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/foreign/Linker.java line 201:
>>
>>> 199: *
>>> 200: * All native linker implementations operate on a subset of memory
>>> layouts. More formally, a layout {@code L}
>>> 201: * is supported
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 13:04:22 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Maurizio Cimadamore has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Fix wrong link in layout well-formedness doc
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/foreign/FunctionDescriptor
On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 09:58:54 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>>> I think SegmentAllocator should be agnostic re. thread safety. Allocation
>>> is a world of compromises, where if you give up (thread) safety you can
>>> gain more performance (and viceversa). So I think having a "one size fits
>
On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 08:38:36 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> I think SegmentAllocator should be agnostic re. thread safety. Allocation is
>> a world of compromises, where if you give up (thread) safety you can gain
>> more performance (and viceversa). So I think having a "one size fits all"
>> thre
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 21:12:08 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
> I think SegmentAllocator should be agnostic re. thread safety. Allocation is
> a world of compromises, where if you give up (thread) safety you can gain
> more performance (and viceversa). So I think having a "one size fits all"
>
On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 08:08:17 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
>> Right, I guess I'm asking: can/should we do better? ;) It might be nice to
>> define the term once and for all for the entire JDK, similar to how
>> 'reachability' also has a central definition. (and then add a link from
>> here).
>>
>> B
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 21:47:23 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> I think the term is used pretty much all over the javadoc (not just FFM's) -
>> e.g. look for this preamble:
>>
>> * > href="{@docRoot}/java.base/java/lang/doc-files/ValueBased.html">value-based,
>> * immutable and thread-safe
>> ```
>
>
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 20:57:25 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>> On a related note: should we even allow sequences of padding layouts?
>
> I let sequence of padding slide on the basis that groups of padding are
> allowed. But it's a somewhat arbitrary line. That said, we do use stuff like
> that
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 21:00:33 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/foreign/MemoryLayout.java line 470:
>>
>>> 468: * @throws IllegalArgumentException if the layout path contains
>>> one or more dereference path elements.
>>> 469: * @throws IllegalArg
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 21:04:42 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>> the idea behind this is to connect with the javadoc of `SymbolLookup` which
>> defines and then uses symbol all over the place.
>
> Maybe a linkplan could help?
Okay, but `SymbolLookup` also says this: "A symbol lookup retrieves
t
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 13:00:58 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Maurizio Cimadamore has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Fix wrong link in layout well-formedness doc
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/foreign/Arena.java line 26
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 17:10:48 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> Maurizio Cimadamore has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Fix wrong link in layout well-formedness doc
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/foreign/Linker.java line 20
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 21:04:27 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/foreign/Linker.java line 473:
>>
>>> 471:
>>> 472: /**
>>> 473: * Creates a method handle which is used to call a foreign
>>> function with the given signature and symbol.
>>
>> I al
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 18:12:28 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> Maurizio Cimadamore has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Fix wrong link in layout well-formedness doc
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/foreign/Linker.java line 44
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 19:25:38 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/foreign/MemoryLayout.java line 645:
>>
>>> 643: * is 1. As such, regardless of its size, in the absence of an
>>> {@linkplain #withByteAlignment(long) explicit}
>>> 644: * alignment constraint
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 19:36:48 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> Maurizio Cimadamore has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Fix wrong link in layout well-formedness doc
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/foreign/MemorySegment.java
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 13:16:44 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Maurizio Cimadamore has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Fix wrong link in layout well-formedness doc
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/foreign/SequenceLayout.jav
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 19:24:35 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> Maurizio Cimadamore has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Fix wrong link in layout well-formedness doc
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/foreign/MemoryLayout.java l
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 13:06:15 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Maurizio Cimadamore has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Fix wrong link in layout well-formedness doc
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/foreign/FunctionDescriptor
On Mon, 29 May 2023 10:53:52 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>> As the FFM API evolved over time, some parts of the javadoc went out of
>> sync. Now that most of the API is stable, it is a good time to look again at
>> the javadoc as a whole, and bring some more consistency.
>>
>> While most
On Mon, 29 May 2023 10:53:52 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>> As the FFM API evolved over time, some parts of the javadoc went out of
>> sync. Now that most of the API is stable, it is a good time to look again at
>> the javadoc as a whole, and bring some more consistency.
>>
>> While most
> As the FFM API evolved over time, some parts of the javadoc went out of sync.
> Now that most of the API is stable, it is a good time to look again at the
> javadoc as a whole, and bring some more consistency.
>
> While most of the changes in this PR are stylistic, I'd like to call out few
>
On Fri, 26 May 2023 18:11:14 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>> As the FFM API evolved over time, some parts of the javadoc went out of
>> sync. Now that most of the API is stable, it is a good time to look again at
>> the javadoc as a whole, and bring some more consistency.
>>
>> While most
On Thu, 25 May 2023 15:31:43 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>> As the FFM API evolved over time, some parts of the javadoc went out of
>> sync. Now that most of the API is stable, it is a good time to look again at
>> the javadoc as a whole, and bring some more consistency.
>>
>> While most
> As the FFM API evolved over time, some parts of the javadoc went out of sync.
> Now that most of the API is stable, it is a good time to look again at the
> javadoc as a whole, and bring some more consistency.
>
> While most of the changes in this PR are stylistic, I'd like to call out few
>
> As the FFM API evolved over time, some parts of the javadoc went out of sync.
> Now that most of the API is stable, it is a good time to look again at the
> javadoc as a whole, and bring some more consistency.
>
> While most of the changes in this PR are stylistic, I'd like to call out few
>
On Tue, 23 May 2023 11:48:59 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
> As the FFM API evolved over time, some parts of the javadoc went out of sync.
> Now that most of the API is stable, it is a good time to look again at the
> javadoc as a whole, and bring some more consistency.
>
> While most of th
49 matches
Mail list logo
