for a few hours..
>>>
>>> /Claes
>>>
>>>
>>> Originalmeddelande
>>> Från: Bernd Eckenfels
>>> Datum:18-04-2014 19:06 (GMT+01:00)
>>> Till: Michael McMahon
>>> Kopia: Mike Duigou , claes.redes...@oracle.c
Looks good to me. Thanks for polisihing my scribbles up.
As you have mentioned before, you preserve the semantics of valueOf vs.
encode() for the primary and fallback properties. It is a bit hard to
unify as it would generate different behavior for 0-prefixed numbers.
Did you run some JMH tests a
ubtly. I'll fix it as soon as
I can, but I'm out for a few hours..
/Claes
Originalmeddelande
Från: Bernd Eckenfels
Datum:18-04-2014 19:06 (GMT+01:00)
Till: Michael McMahon
Kopia: Mike Duigou , claes.redes...@oracle.com
Rubrik: Re: RFR [9] 8040837: Avoid provoking NFEs wh
Am Fri, 18 Apr 2014 17:27:47 +0100
schrieb Michael McMahon :
> I think it would be an improvement to combine these doPrivileged()
> blocks as suggested, though your patch needs work Bernd. For instance,
> the multi-catch doesn't work. Also the PrivilegedAction<> type is
> wrong.
Yes I noticed tho
Claes tidied things up to produce a workable patch:
> Here is the updated webrev:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mduigou/JDK-8040837/0/webrev/
>
> I will push it to jdk9/dev/jdk on Friday before COB for Claes unless I hear
> objections.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
On Apr 18 2014, at 09:27 , Michae
I think it would be an improvement to combine these doPrivileged() blocks
as suggested, though your patch needs work Bernd. For instance,
the multi-catch doesn't work. Also the PrivilegedAction<> type is wrong.
If someone wants to update it, then we can use that. Otherwise, we'll
go with the orig
Am Thu, 17 Apr 2014 21:50:23 +0200
schrieb Bernd Eckenfels :
> Hello,
>
> I would propose to use Integer.valueOf(tmp) instead, but looking at
> the context I think it is even better to skip this and the following
> null check with Integer.parseInt().
This is even shorter and it reduces the privi
Hello,
I would propose to use Integer.valueOf(tmp) instead, but looking at the
context I think it is even better to skip this and the following null
check with Integer.parseInt().
Gruss
Bernd
what about using Integer.valueOf(tmp)
Am Thu, 17 Apr 2014 17:56:10 +0200
schrieb Claes Redestad :
> Hi,
Looks fine to me.
Mike
On Apr 17 2014, at 08:56 , Claes Redestad wrote:
> Hi,
>
> could I get a review of the following small patch to address 8040837:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lagergren/8040837/
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8040837
>
> A simple JMH microbenchmark shows
Hi,
could I get a review of the following small patch to address 8040837:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lagergren/8040837/
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8040837
A simple JMH microbenchmark shows this actually might have a small
benefit to startup:
@GenerateMicroBenchmark
10 matches
Mail list logo
