On Tue, 20 May 2025 16:10:07 GMT, Per Minborg <pminb...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> This PR proposes to use `JavaNioAccess::getBufferAdress` rather than >> `DirectBuffer::address` so that `Buffer` instances backed by MemorySegment >> instances can be used in classes that were not covered by >> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/25321 >> >> This PR passes tier1, tier2, and tier3 tests on multiple platforms and >> configurations. > > Per Minborg has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last revision: > > Update after comments test/jdk/java/nio/channels/AsynchronousFileChannel/Basic.java line 583: > 581: } > 582: default -> throw new InternalError("Should not reach here"); > 583: }; Suggestion: return switch (rand.nextInt(3)) { case 0 -> ByteBuffer.allocateDirect(buf.length) .put(buf) .flip(); case 1 -> ByteBuffer.wrap(buf); case 2 -> Arena.ofAuto() .allocate(buf.length) .asByteBuffer() .put(buf) .flip(); default -> throw new InternalError("Should not reach here"); }; ByteBuffer supports chain programming style, so we can simplify it to this ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25324#discussion_r2098997233
