Re: RFR: 8304932: MethodTypeDescImpl can be mutated by argument passed to MethodTypeDesc.of

2023-03-25 Thread Chen Liang
On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 05:23:54 GMT, Chen Liang wrote: > Fixed the bug where if a caller keeps a reference to the array passed into > `MethodTypeDesc.of`, the caller may mutate the Desc via the array and can > create invalid MethodTypeDesc. > > Unfortunately, since the input array now needs to be

RFR: 8304932: MethodTypeDescImpl can be mutated by argument passed to MethodTypeDesc.of

2023-03-25 Thread Chen Liang
Fixed the bug where if a caller keeps a reference to the array passed into `MethodTypeDesc.of`, the caller may mutate the Desc via the array and can create invalid MethodTypeDesc. Unfortunately, since the input array now needs to be copied, the `of` factory suffers from a performance drop. But

Re: RFR: 8304846: Provide a shared utility to dump generated classes defined via Lookup API [v2]

2023-03-25 Thread Chen Liang
On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 23:00:12 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote: >> This implements a shared utility to dump generated classes defined as >> normal/hidden classes via `Lookup` API. This replaces the implementation >> in `LambdaMetaFactory` and method handle implementation that dumps the >> hidden class

RFD: Should jextract be extracted from the JDK?

2023-03-25 Thread Eirik Bjørsnøs
Hi, I'll raise this periodic (?) question for discussion, but first I want to make it clear I have no opinion myself. Here is the question in question: Should jextract be extracted from the JDK? If so, would it make sense to do it now rather than later? I'm asking this because I remember this b

Re: jextract OS/X

2023-03-25 Thread Michael Hall
> On Mar 25, 2023, at 11:33 AM, Michael Hall wrote: > > For the jdk-19 release this is included in the bin directory but not in the > jdk-19.0.2. Is there a reason for this? I remembered I think my jdk-19 was a Panama specific. The jdk-19.0.2 was the current general release. Probably why.

jextract OS/X

2023-03-25 Thread Michael Hall
For the jdk-19 release this is included in the bin directory but not in the jdk-19.0.2. Is there a reason for this?

Re: RFR: 8304013: Add a fast, non-manual alternative to test/jdk/java/util/zip/ZipFile/TestTooManyEntries [v4]

2023-03-25 Thread Eirik Bjorsnos
On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 12:12:21 GMT, Eirik Bjorsnos wrote: >> The TestTooManyEntries test was originally added to validate that ZIP64 >> files with CEN sizes exceeding what ZipFile supports are rejected with a >> ZipException. The test does this by creating a large ZIP file (several >> gigabytes

Re: RFR: 8304013: Add a fast, non-manual alternative to test/jdk/java/util/zip/ZipFile/TestTooManyEntries [v4]

2023-03-25 Thread Lance Andersen
On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 12:12:21 GMT, Eirik Bjorsnos wrote: >> The TestTooManyEntries test was originally added to validate that ZIP64 >> files with CEN sizes exceeding what ZipFile supports are rejected with a >> ZipException. The test does this by creating a large ZIP file (several >> gigabytes

Re: RFR: 8304013: Add a fast, non-manual alternative to test/jdk/java/util/zip/ZipFile/TestTooManyEntries [v4]

2023-03-25 Thread Eirik Bjorsnos
On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 12:11:18 GMT, Eirik Bjorsnos wrote: >>> I hear you but the option is not to use javadoc comments and use block >>> comments :-) >> >> I learned something new today: Javadoc comments and block comments are not >> the same! > > So I changed the references to this ultimate ZIP

Re: RFR: 8304013: Add a fast, non-manual alternative to test/jdk/java/util/zip/ZipFile/TestTooManyEntries [v4]

2023-03-25 Thread Eirik Bjorsnos
On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 11:55:44 GMT, Eirik Bjorsnos wrote: >>> I think the PR is ready to be sponsored after this. >> >> Please see my comment regarding the end of central directory record. >> >> I would prefer to tweak that in a fashion similar to what I indicated as I >> thought your original

Re: RFR: 8304013: Add a fast, non-manual alternative to test/jdk/java/util/zip/ZipFile/TestTooManyEntries [v4]

2023-03-25 Thread Eirik Bjorsnos
> The TestTooManyEntries test was originally added to validate that ZIP64 files > with CEN sizes exceeding what ZipFile supports are rejected with a > ZipException. The test does this by creating a large ZIP file (several > gigabytes) with many enties. Because this is resource intensive, the te

Re: RFR: 8304013: Add a fast, non-manual alternative to test/jdk/java/util/zip/ZipFile/TestTooManyEntries [v3]

2023-03-25 Thread Lance Andersen
On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 11:18:32 GMT, Lance Andersen wrote: >> Thanks, I've added `@throws IOException if an error occurs` to all methods >> throwing `IOException`. >> >> For the record, let me state my personal (rather strong) opinion: >> >> I think this a pretty crazy level of boilerplate noise

Re: RFR: 8304013: Add a fast, non-manual alternative to test/jdk/java/util/zip/ZipFile/TestTooManyEntries [v3]

2023-03-25 Thread Eirik Bjorsnos
On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 11:23:01 GMT, Lance Andersen wrote: >> I hear you but the option is not to use javadoc comments and use block >> comments :-) >> >> I think we can agree to disagree on impacting readability ;-) this comes >> down to personal preferences >> >> Again thank you for making th

Re: RFR: 8304013: Add a fast, non-manual alternative to test/jdk/java/util/zip/ZipFile/TestTooManyEntries [v3]

2023-03-25 Thread Lance Andersen
On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 11:07:24 GMT, Eirik Bjorsnos wrote: >> Please add them back before pushing with `@throws IOException if an error >> occurs` >> >> Yes I understand they do not add much value but it will reduce noise from >> IDEs and if/when we add more checks for missing javadoc tags, it wi

Re: RFR: 8304013: Add a fast, non-manual alternative to test/jdk/java/util/zip/ZipFile/TestTooManyEntries [v3]

2023-03-25 Thread Lance Andersen
On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 06:46:22 GMT, Eirik Bjorsnos wrote: >> test/jdk/java/util/zip/ZipFile/EndOfCenValidation.java line 120: >> >>> 118: /** >>> 119: * Validate that an end of central directory record with a >>> 120: * CEN size which exceeds the position of the EOC record is >>> re

Re: RFR: 8304013: Add a fast, non-manual alternative to test/jdk/java/util/zip/ZipFile/TestTooManyEntries [v3]

2023-03-25 Thread Eirik Bjorsnos
> The TestTooManyEntries test was originally added to validate that ZIP64 files > with CEN sizes exceeding what ZipFile supports are rejected with a > ZipException. The test does this by creating a large ZIP file (several > gigabytes) with many enties. Because this is resource intensive, the te

Re: RFR: 8304013: Add a fast, non-manual alternative to test/jdk/java/util/zip/ZipFile/TestTooManyEntries [v3]

2023-03-25 Thread Eirik Bjorsnos
On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 10:47:20 GMT, Lance Andersen wrote: >> I recently added a `@throws` by review comment from Lance. I tend to agree >> that is not very useful, so I'm removing both ocurrences as per your >> recommendation. >> >> If Lance wants it back, he can add a review comment saying so.

Re: RFR: 8304013: Add a fast, non-manual alternative to test/jdk/java/util/zip/ZipFile/TestTooManyEntries [v2]

2023-03-25 Thread Lance Andersen
On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 06:50:16 GMT, Eirik Bjorsnos wrote: >> test/jdk/java/util/zip/ZipFile/EndOfCenValidation.java line 139: >> >>> 137: * Validate that an end of central directory record with a CEN >>> offset which >>> 138: * is larger than the EOC position minus the CEN size is rejec

RFR: 8304917: Remove unused function declarations in check_classname.h

2023-03-25 Thread Thiago Henrique Hüpner
Both functions "VerifyClassname" and "VerifyFixClassname" are not used. The functions that are used in the Class.c are "verifyClassname" and "verifyFixClassname", which are declared in the "check_classname.h" header - Commit messages: - Fix copyright - Remove unused function decla

Re: RFR: 8304745: Lazily initialize byte[] in java.io.BufferedInputStream [v8]

2023-03-25 Thread Alan Bateman
On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 05:55:46 GMT, Eirik Bjorsnos wrote: > I think the benchmark would benefit with a few words explaining why you > focused on those methods/calling patterns. For someone walking past this > benchmark, this is not obvious why you picked those. I think the interesting case is wh

Re: RFR: 8266571: Sequenced Collections [v2]

2023-03-25 Thread Rémi Forax
On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 03:54:23 GMT, Stuart Marks wrote: >> PR for Sequenced Collections implementation. > > Stuart Marks has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional > commits since the last revision: > > - More specification tweaks. > - Add simple overrides to ArrayList. Thi

Re: RFR: 8266571: Sequenced Collections [v2]

2023-03-25 Thread Rémi Forax
On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 03:54:23 GMT, Stuart Marks wrote: >> PR for Sequenced Collections implementation. > > Stuart Marks has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional > commits since the last revision: > > - More specification tweaks. > - Add simple overrides to ArrayList. src

Re: RFR: 8266571: Sequenced Collections [v2]

2023-03-25 Thread Rémi Forax
On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 03:54:23 GMT, Stuart Marks wrote: >> PR for Sequenced Collections implementation. > > Stuart Marks has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional > commits since the last revision: > > - More specification tweaks. > - Add simple overrides to ArrayList. src

Re: RFR: 8266571: Sequenced Collections [v2]

2023-03-25 Thread Rémi Forax
On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 03:54:23 GMT, Stuart Marks wrote: >> PR for Sequenced Collections implementation. > > Stuart Marks has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional > commits since the last revision: > > - More specification tweaks. > - Add simple overrides to ArrayList. src