On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 10:49 +, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> Neil,
>
> I filed:
> CR 7114558: "Inet4AddressImpl should use memset (rather than bzero) and
> NI_MAXHOST (rather than MAXHOSTNAMELEN)"
>
> And also reviewed your webrev. Looks fine.
>
> -Chris.
Hi Chris,
Thanks for reviewing this for m
Neil,
I filed:
CR 7114558: "Inet4AddressImpl should use memset (rather than bzero) and
NI_MAXHOST (rather than MAXHOSTNAMELEN)"
And also reviewed your webrev. Looks fine.
-Chris.
On 11/22/11 10:00 AM, Neil Richards wrote:
On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 09:38 +, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Let me know
On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 09:38 +, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> Let me know the details synopsis/descriptions/etc and I'll file a new
> CR. I'm guessing its just some cleanup/style issues, right?
>
> -Chris.
I've uploaded a webrev with the gap between the two [1].
The differences are the use of memse
On 11/22/11 09:27 AM, Neil Richards wrote:
Hi Chris,
Thank you for creating the bug id for this issue.
I've now pushed the change [1].
However, I've just realised I've foolishly pushed a previous version of
the change, and not the final agreed version. (aargh!)
No problem. This happens f
On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 20:57 +, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> Thank you Charles, and Neil.
>
> I ran some builds and tests and all looks good to me. Thanks for fixing
> the warnings, I know they were not caused by your changes.
>
> Just noticed that we haven't just filed a bug for this, so I just cr
On 11/17/2011 04:57 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 11/16/11 01:48 AM, Charles Lee wrote:
On 11/16/2011 01:00 AM, Neil Richards wrote:
On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 19:37 +0800, Charles Lee wrote:
On 11/15/2011 07:10 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 11/15/11 06:57 AM, Charles Lee wrote:
Sigh. Chris, I s
On 11/16/11 01:48 AM, Charles Lee wrote:
On 11/16/2011 01:00 AM, Neil Richards wrote:
On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 19:37 +0800, Charles Lee wrote:
On 11/15/2011 07:10 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 11/15/11 06:57 AM, Charles Lee wrote:
Sigh. Chris, I still fail to see those warnings, even if I do
On 11/16/2011 01:00 AM, Neil Richards wrote:
On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 19:37 +0800, Charles Lee wrote:
On 11/15/2011 07:10 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 11/15/11 06:57 AM, Charles Lee wrote:
Sigh. Chris, I still fail to see those warnings, even if I do a very
clean remove of my build directory
On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 19:37 +0800, Charles Lee wrote:
> On 11/15/2011 07:10 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> > On 11/15/11 06:57 AM, Charles Lee wrote:
> >>
>
> >>>
> >> Sigh. Chris, I still fail to see those warnings, even if I do a very
> >> clean remove of my build directory and rebuild the
On 11/15/2011 07:10 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 11/15/11 06:57 AM, Charles Lee wrote:
Sigh. Chris, I still fail to see those warnings, even if I do a very
clean remove of my build directory and rebuild the whole jdk
The warning are being generated on Solaris when using the Sun
On 11/15/11 06:57 AM, Charles Lee wrote:
Sigh. Chris, I still fail to see those warnings, even if I do a very
clean remove of my build directory and rebuild the whole jdk
The warning are being generated on Solaris when using the Sun compilers
( both full and incremental builds )
On 11/14/2011 10:15 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
I agree with Mikes comments, and here are a few of trivial ones of my
own.
- 'struct sockaddr_in6 him6' here is unused in getHostByAddr
- caddr[16] - > caddr[4] in getHostByAddr
Thanks for making this change. It really cleans up this old code.
It
On 11/14/2011 10:15 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
I agree with Mikes comments, and here are a few of trivial ones of my
own.
- 'struct sockaddr_in6 him6' here is unused in getHostByAddr
- caddr[16] - > caddr[4] in getHostByAddr
Thanks for making this change. It really cleans up this old code.
It
I agree with Mikes comments, and here are a few of trivial ones of my own.
- 'struct sockaddr_in6 him6' here is unused in getHostByAddr
- caddr[16] - > caddr[4] in getHostByAddr
Thanks for making this change. It really cleans up this old code.
It is not your fault as the same is in Inet6Addre
On 11/12/2011 04:07 AM, Mike Duigou wrote:
Some comments:
Inet4AddressImpl.c:
- why use bzero rather than posix memset?
- MAXHOSTNAMELEN is used. Shouldn't this be NI_MAXHOST as in the Inet6 version?
Mike
On Nov 11 2011, at 06:53 , Neil Richards wrote:
On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 12:19 +0800, Ch
Some comments:
Inet4AddressImpl.c:
- why use bzero rather than posix memset?
- MAXHOSTNAMELEN is used. Shouldn't this be NI_MAXHOST as in the Inet6 version?
Mike
On Nov 11 2011, at 06:53 , Neil Richards wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 12:19 +0800, Charles Lee wrote:
>> On 11/09/2011 03:25 AM,
On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 12:19 +0800, Charles Lee wrote:
> On 11/09/2011 03:25 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> > Charles,
> >
> > Is it possible to fix up the style issues, etc that Neil pointed out,
> > and have the webrev updated?
> >
> Hi Chris,
>
> Here it is. (attached)
>
And here it is, in webre
On 11/09/2011 03:25 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Charles,
Is it possible to fix up the style issues, etc that Neil pointed out,
and have the webrev updated?
Thanks,
-Chris.
On 11/ 8/11 01:44 PM, Charles Lee wrote:
On 11/03/2011 12:33 AM, Neil Richards wrote:
On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 23:07 +0800,
Charles,
Is it possible to fix up the style issues, etc that Neil pointed out,
and have the webrev updated?
Thanks,
-Chris.
On 11/ 8/11 01:44 PM, Charles Lee wrote:
On 11/03/2011 12:33 AM, Neil Richards wrote:
On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 23:07 +0800, Charles Lee wrote:
On 10/26/2011 06:31 PM, Ch
On 11/03/2011 12:33 AM, Neil Richards wrote:
On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 23:07 +0800, Charles Lee wrote:
On 10/26/2011 06:31 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 26/10/2011 10:36, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 26/10/2011 10:24, Charles Lee wrote:
/>>> I don't think this code has changed too much since then and
p
On 11/03/2011 12:33 AM, Neil Richards wrote:
On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 23:07 +0800, Charles Lee wrote:
On 10/26/2011 06:31 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 26/10/2011 10:36, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 26/10/2011 10:24, Charles Lee wrote:
/>>> I don't think this code has changed too much since then and
p
On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 23:07 +0800, Charles Lee wrote:
> On 10/26/2011 06:31 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> > On 26/10/2011 10:36, Alan Bateman wrote:
> >> On 26/10/2011 10:24, Charles Lee wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> />>> I don't think this code has changed too much since then and
> >>> probably could do w
On 10/26/2011 06:31 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 26/10/2011 10:36, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 26/10/2011 10:24, Charles Lee wrote:
/>>> I don't think this code has changed too much since then and
probably could do with a clean-up./
Not true.
I'm talking about the InetAddress* code, that hasn't ch
On 10/26/2011 06:31 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 26/10/2011 10:36, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 26/10/2011 10:24, Charles Lee wrote:
/>>> I don't think this code has changed too much since then and
probably could do with a clean-up./
Not true.
I'm talking about the InetAddress* code, that hasn't ch
On 10/26/2011 06:31 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 26/10/2011 10:36, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 26/10/2011 10:24, Charles Lee wrote:
/>>> I don't think this code has changed too much since then and
probably could do with a clean-up./
Not true.
I'm talking about the InetAddress* code, that hasn't ch
On 10/26/2011 05:36 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 26/10/2011 10:24, Charles Lee wrote:
/>>> I don't think this code has changed too much since then and
probably could do with a clean-up./
Not true.
I'm talking about the InetAddress* code, that hasn't changed
significantly and probably could do
On 26/10/2011 10:36, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 26/10/2011 10:24, Charles Lee wrote:
/>>> I don't think this code has changed too much since then and
probably could do with a clean-up./
Not true.
I'm talking about the InetAddress* code, that hasn't changed
significantly and probably could do with
On 26/10/2011 10:24, Charles Lee wrote:
/>>> I don't think this code has changed too much since then and
probably could do with a clean-up./
Not true.
I'm talking about the InetAddress* code, that hasn't changed
significantly and probably could do with some modernization now.
-Alan.
On 10/26/2011 04:30 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 26/10/2011 08:47, Charles Lee wrote:
But I do not get getaddrinfo is ipv6 specified. Do I miss sth?
If I recall correctly, when the support for IPv6 was added (predates
OpenJDK as it was jdk1.4, as in 10 years ago) then
getaddrinfo/getnameinfo/etc
On 26/10/2011 08:47, Charles Lee wrote:
But I do not get getaddrinfo is ipv6 specified. Do I miss sth?
If I recall correctly, when the support for IPv6 was added (predates
OpenJDK as it was jdk1.4, as in 10 years ago) then
getaddrinfo/getnameinfo/etc. wasn't not widely supported and if I think
On 10/25/2011 05:41 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 10/25/11 08:31 AM, Charles Lee wrote:
Hi guys,
I am reading some native code in the jdk repos. I find that in
Inet4AddressImpl.c (folder solaris), gethostbyname is used. Meanwhile in
the Inet6AddressImpl.c. getaddrinfo is used. My question is why
Hello Chris,
On 10/25/2011 05:41 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 10/25/11 08:31 AM, Charles Lee wrote:
Hi guys,
I am reading some native code in the jdk repos. I find that in
Inet4AddressImpl.c (folder solaris), gethostbyname is used. Meanwhile in
the Inet6AddressImpl.c. getaddrinfo is used. My q
On 10/25/11 08:31 AM, Charles Lee wrote:
Hi guys,
I am reading some native code in the jdk repos. I find that in
Inet4AddressImpl.c (folder solaris), gethostbyname is used. Meanwhile in
the Inet6AddressImpl.c. getaddrinfo is used. My question is why inet4
does not use getaddrinfo? Any concern h
33 matches
Mail list logo
