Re: RFR: 8251317: Support for CLDR version 38

2020-11-18 Thread Joe Wang
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 23:19:23 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote: > Hi, > > Please review the changes for upgrading the CLDR data to version 38. The vast > majority of the changes are simply the changes in CLDR upstream, and others > are mainly test changes due to the locale data change. Looks good to me.

Re: RFR: 8253459: Formatter treats index, width and precision > Integer.MAX_VALUE incorrectly [v13]

2020-11-18 Thread Ian Graves
> The `java.util.Formatter` format specifies support for field widths, argument > indexes, or precision lengths of a field that relate to the variadic > arguments supplied to the formatter. These numbers are specified by integers, > sometimes negative. For argument index, it's specified in the d

Re: RFR: 8253459: Formatter treats index, width and precision > Integer.MAX_VALUE incorrectly [v12]

2020-11-18 Thread Ian Graves
On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 00:38:49 GMT, Stuart Marks wrote: >> Ian Graves has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional >> commit since the last revision: >> >> 'unrepresentable' to 'not representable' > > test/jdk/java/util/IllegalFormatException/TestFormatSpecifierBounds.java lin

Re: RFR: 8253459: Formatter treats index, width and precision > Integer.MAX_VALUE incorrectly [v12]

2020-11-18 Thread Stuart Marks
On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 22:57:19 GMT, Ian Graves wrote: >> The `java.util.Formatter` format specifies support for field widths, >> argument indexes, or precision lengths of a field that relate to the >> variadic arguments supplied to the formatter. These numbers are specified by >> integers, somet

Re: RFR: 8253459: Formatter treats index, width and precision > Integer.MAX_VALUE incorrectly [v12]

2020-11-18 Thread Roger Riggs
On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 22:57:19 GMT, Ian Graves wrote: >> The `java.util.Formatter` format specifies support for field widths, >> argument indexes, or precision lengths of a field that relate to the >> variadic arguments supplied to the formatter. These numbers are specified by >> integers, somet

Re: RFR: 8253459: Formatter treats index, width and precision > Integer.MAX_VALUE incorrectly [v12]

2020-11-18 Thread Ian Graves
> The `java.util.Formatter` format specifies support for field widths, argument > indexes, or precision lengths of a field that relate to the variadic > arguments supplied to the formatter. These numbers are specified by integers, > sometimes negative. For argument index, it's specified in the d

Re: RFR: 8253459: Formatter treats index, width and precision > Integer.MAX_VALUE incorrectly [v11]

2020-11-18 Thread Ian Graves
On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 22:30:21 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote: >> Ian Graves has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional >> commit since the last revision: >> >> Exception message tweak > > src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/IllegalFormatArgumentIndexException.java > line 66: >

Re: RFR: 8253459: Formatter treats index, width and precision > Integer.MAX_VALUE incorrectly [v11]

2020-11-18 Thread Roger Riggs
On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 22:09:21 GMT, Ian Graves wrote: >> The `java.util.Formatter` format specifies support for field widths, >> argument indexes, or precision lengths of a field that relate to the >> variadic arguments supplied to the formatter. These numbers are specified by >> integers, somet

Re: RFR: 8253459: Formatter treats index, width and precision > Integer.MAX_VALUE incorrectly [v11]

2020-11-18 Thread Ian Graves
> The `java.util.Formatter` format specifies support for field widths, argument > indexes, or precision lengths of a field that relate to the variadic > arguments supplied to the formatter. These numbers are specified by integers, > sometimes negative. For argument index, it's specified in the d

Re: RFR: 8251317: Support for CLDR version 38

2020-11-18 Thread Brent Christian
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 23:19:23 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote: > Hi, > > Please review the changes for upgrading the CLDR data to version 38. The vast > majority of the changes are simply the changes in CLDR upstream, and others > are mainly test changes due to the locale data change. Changes seem fine

Re: RFR: 8253459: Formatter treats index, width and precision > Integer.MAX_VALUE incorrectly [v10]

2020-11-18 Thread Ian Graves
> The `java.util.Formatter` format specifies support for field widths, argument > indexes, or precision lengths of a field that relate to the variadic > arguments supplied to the formatter. These numbers are specified by integers, > sometimes negative. For argument index, it's specified in the d

Re: RFR: 8251317: Support for CLDR version 38

2020-11-18 Thread Erik Joelsson
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 23:19:23 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote: > Hi, > > Please review the changes for upgrading the CLDR data to version 38. The vast > majority of the changes are simply the changes in CLDR upstream, and others > are mainly test changes due to the locale data change. Looks fine from a