On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 17:36:22 GMT, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
>> Changes to address `File.listFiles` invoked on an empty path. This fixes an
>> oversight in #22821.
>
> Brian Burkhalter has updated the pull request incrementally with one
> additional commit since the last revision:
>
> 8361587:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 15:06:33 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
> Reduced number of iterations from 10 million to 1 million to reduce cpu time
Looks good and trivial to me.
-
Marked as reviewed by jpai (Reviewer).
PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26389#pullrequestreview-3033958779
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 09:05:40 GMT, Christian Stein wrote:
> Please review the change to update to using jtreg 8.
>
> The primary change is to the `jib-profiles.js` file, which specifies the
> version of jtreg to use, for those systems that rely on this file. In
> addition, the requiredVersion h
er1, tier2 and tier3 tests continue to pass with this change. I've marked
> the fix version of this issue for 26 and I don't plan to push this for 25.
Jaikiran Pai has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge
or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 17:36:22 GMT, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
>> Changes to address `File.listFiles` invoked on an empty path. This fixes an
>> oversight in #22821.
>
> Brian Burkhalter has updated the pull request incrementally with one
> additional commit since the last revision:
>
> 8361587:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 15:22:24 GMT, Nizar Benalla wrote:
> Once https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8358769 is resolved,
> JavaBaseCheckSince no longer needs to be problemlisted.
Hello Nizar, if I understand correctly, this problem listing can be removed and
the PR integrated once the merge conf
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:47:43 GMT, Matthew Donovan wrote:
> In this PR I added TLS groups and signature algorithms to the output of the
> show settings flag. The values are printed in a single column, like the
> cipher suites. There can be a lot of values so putting on a single line is
> ugly. I
On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 00:05:39 GMT, Kim Barrett wrote:
> Please review this change that removes the class jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner.
> It is no longer used after JDK-8344332.
>
> Testing: mach5 tier1-3
This looks OK to me and matches with what was discussed about this in a recent
PR https://github
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 10:09:44 GMT, Nizar Benalla wrote:
> Please review this patch to add a new test to check `@since` tags in the
> `jdk.editpad` module.
>
> TIA
This looks OK to me.
-
Marked as reviewed by jpai (Reviewer).
PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25613#pullre
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 05:43:11 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
>> After 8339120, gcc began catching many different instances of unused code in
>> the Windows specific codebase. Some of these seem to be bugs. I've taken the
>> effort to mark out all the relevant globals and locals that trigger the
>> u
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 12:58:39 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> This mostly just adds overrides to the wrapper implementations in
>> java.util.Collections. However, in order to satisfy the test, some overrides
>> are also added to ReverseOrderSortedMapView, which is used by the Sor
On Wed, 28 May 2025 03:03:45 GMT, Stuart Marks wrote:
> This mostly just adds overrides to the wrapper implementations in
> java.util.Collections. However, in order to satisfy the test, some overrides
> are also added to ReverseOrderSortedMapView, which is used by the SortedMap
> wrapper keySe
On Wed, 28 May 2025 03:03:45 GMT, Stuart Marks wrote:
> This mostly just adds overrides to the wrapper implementations in
> java.util.Collections. However, in order to satisfy the test, some overrides
> are also added to ReverseOrderSortedMapView, which is used by the SortedMap
> wrapper keySe
On Wed, 28 May 2025 03:03:45 GMT, Stuart Marks wrote:
> This mostly just adds overrides to the wrapper implementations in
> java.util.Collections. However, in order to satisfy the test, some overrides
> are also added to ReverseOrderSortedMapView, which is used by the SortedMap
> wrapper keySe
On Wed, 28 May 2025 03:03:45 GMT, Stuart Marks wrote:
> This mostly just adds overrides to the wrapper implementations in
> java.util.Collections. However, in order to satisfy the test, some overrides
> are also added to ReverseOrderSortedMapView, which is used by the SortedMap
> wrapper keySe
On Wed, 28 May 2025 03:03:45 GMT, Stuart Marks wrote:
> This mostly just adds overrides to the wrapper implementations in
> java.util.Collections. However, in order to satisfy the test, some overrides
> are also added to ReverseOrderSortedMapView, which is used by the SortedMap
> wrapper keySe
On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 14:23:00 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Process.java line 113:
>>
>>> 111: * releasing the operating system resources.
>>> 112: * {@code Try-with-resources} can be used to open and close the
>>> streams.
>>> 113: * For example, to capture
On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 14:52:06 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
>> Improve the documentation of Process use of system resources.
>>
>> Describe the implementation closing streams when no longer referenced.
>> Clarify the interactions between inputStream and inputReader and errorStream
>> and errorReader.
>
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 00:01:21 GMT, Shaojin Wen wrote:
>> BufferedWriter -> OutputStreamWriter -> StreamEncoder
>>
>> In this call chain, BufferedWriter has a char[] buffer, and StreamEncoder
>> has a ByteBuffer. There are two layers of cache here, or the BufferedWriter
>> layer can be removed. A
On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 14:46:20 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
> But including both links makes the sentence hard to read, so I picked the
> more expressive reader method to link to.
It didn't realize you had intentionally used the `CharSet` one. If you think
the CharSet would provide better guidance to
On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 14:49:01 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
>> Improve the documentation of Process use of system resources.
>>
>> Describe the implementation closing streams when no longer referenced.
>> Clarify the interactions between inputStream and inputReader and errorStream
>> and errorReader.
>
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 22:30:57 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
>> Improve the documentation of Process use of system resources.
>>
>> Describe the implementation closing streams when no longer referenced.
>> Clarify the interactions between inputStream and inputReader and errorStream
>> and errorReader.
>
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 22:30:57 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
>> Improve the documentation of Process use of system resources.
>>
>> Describe the implementation closing streams when no longer referenced.
>> Clarify the interactions between inputStream and inputReader and errorStream
>> and errorReader.
>
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 22:30:57 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
>> Improve the documentation of Process use of system resources.
>>
>> Describe the implementation closing streams when no longer referenced.
>> Clarify the interactions between inputStream and inputReader and errorStream
>> and errorReader.
>
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 22:30:57 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
>> Improve the documentation of Process use of system resources.
>>
>> Describe the implementation closing streams when no longer referenced.
>> Clarify the interactions between inputStream and inputReader and errorStream
>> and errorReader.
>
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 11:48:30 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this backport of a test-only fix?
>
> This backports the fix for https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8359337 into
> JDK 25. The original fix was integrated into mainline a few minutes b
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 11:48:30 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this backport of a test-only fix?
>
> This backports the fix for https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8359337 into
> JDK 25. The original fix was integrated into mainline a few minutes b
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 18:19:30 GMT, Kieran Farrell wrote:
>> With the recent approval of UUIDv7
>> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9562/), this PR aims to add a new
>> static method UUID.timestampUUID() which constructs and returns a UUID in
>> support of the new time generated UUID version
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 18:19:30 GMT, Kieran Farrell wrote:
>> With the recent approval of UUIDv7
>> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9562/), this PR aims to add a new
>> static method UUID.timestampUUID() which constructs and returns a UUID in
>> support of the new time generated UUID version
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 14:48:50 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/UUID.java line 107:
>>
>>> 105:
>>> 106: private static long monotonicMS() {
>>> 107: return ORIGIN_MS + (System.nanoTime() - ORIGIN_NS) / 1_000_000;
>>
>> Hello Kieran, the `System.nanoTim
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 18:19:30 GMT, Kieran Farrell wrote:
>> With the recent approval of UUIDv7
>> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9562/), this PR aims to add a new
>> static method UUID.timestampUUID() which constructs and returns a UUID in
>> support of the new time generated UUID version
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 14:26:44 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> So the same JVM will never run more than one test concurrently.
Just for my own peace of mind I looked up the jtreg FAQ to be sure it specifies
this behaviour. The FAQ here says
https://openjdk.org/jtreg/faq.html#how-do-i-specify-whet
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 14:13:08 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
> This seems OK without /othervm as long as tests are not run concurrently in
> the same VM.
jtreg guarantees that a agentvm is only used for one single action. So the same
JVM will never run more than one test concurrently.
-
Can I please get a review of this backport of a test-only fix?
This backports the fix for https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8359337 into JDK
25. The original fix was integrated into mainline a few minutes back
https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/26052. Backporting this fix should help
preven
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 16:18:00 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this test-only change which addresses the issue
> noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8359337?
>
> On macOS, the JDK by default (without any explicit system properties) picks
> up the
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 16:52:55 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review of this test-only change which addresses the issue
>> noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8359337?
>>
>> On macOS, the JDK by default (without any explicit system properties
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 16:18:00 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this test-only change which addresses the issue
> noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8359337?
>
> On macOS, the JDK by default (without any explicit system properties) picks
> up the
ges, these tests now pass on
> the host where these tests were failing previously. Additionally I've run
> tier2 to make sure nothing else is impacted due to this change.
Jaikiran Pai has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
commit since the last revision:
Jo
Can I please get a review of this test-only change which addresses the issue
noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8359337?
On macOS, the JDK by default (without any explicit system properties) picks up
the proxy settings configured on the host. These proxy settings then get used
by the
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 14:55:10 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> Daniel Fuchs has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 525 commits:
>>
>> - merge latest changes from master branch
>> - http3: run H3StreamLimitReachedTest.java wit
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 06:01:44 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review of this doc-only change which proposes to clarify
>> the current implementation of the `java.util.Properties.list(...)` methods?
>>
>> As noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/
On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 07:01:29 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Jaikiran Pai has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Andy's review suggestions
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/Pr
7 when printing out the value.
> This behaviour isn't documented by these methods. The change in this PR adds
> an `@implNote` to make a mention of this current behaviour.
Jaikiran Pai has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
commit since the last revision:
er1, tier2 and tier3 tests continue to pass with this change. I've marked
> the fix version of this issue for 26 and I don't plan to push this for 25.
Jaikiran Pai has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge
or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 20:16:18 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
> Improve the documentation of Process use of system resources.
>
> Describe the implementation closing streams when no longer referenced.
> Clarify the interactions between inputStream and inputReader and errorStream
> and errorReader.
> Add
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 20:16:18 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
> Improve the documentation of Process use of system resources.
>
> Describe the implementation closing streams when no longer referenced.
> Clarify the interactions between inputStream and inputReader and errorStream
> and errorReader.
> Add
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 16:12:53 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Process.java line 202:
>>
>>> 200: *
>>> 201: * @apiNote
>>> 202: * Avoid using both {@link #getInputStream} and {@link
>>> #inputReader
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 16:09:02 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Improve the documentation of Process use of system resources.
>>
>> Describe the implementation closing streams when no longer referenced.
>> Clarify the interactions between inputStream and inputReader and errorSt
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 20:16:18 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
> Improve the documentation of Process use of system resources.
>
> Describe the implementation closing streams when no longer referenced.
> Clarify the interactions between inputStream and inputReader and errorStream
> and errorReader.
> Add
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 20:16:18 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
> Improve the documentation of Process use of system resources.
>
> Describe the implementation closing streams when no longer referenced.
> Clarify the interactions between inputStream and inputReader and errorStream
> and errorReader.
> Add
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 14:33:30 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
>> Jaikiran Pai has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Alan's review - limit the details in implNote
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/
7 when printing out the value.
> This behaviour isn't documented by these methods. The change in this PR adds
> an `@implNote` to make a mention of this current behaviour.
Jaikiran Pai has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
commit since the last revision:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 13:41:11 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> Are you sure you want to describe the format, even in an implNote? Although
> the string representation probably hasn't changed in 25+ years, it's not
> something that anything should become dependent on.
I wasn't too sure how much detail
7 when printing out the value.
> This behaviour isn't documented by these methods. The change in this PR adds
> an `@implNote` to make a mention of this current behaviour.
Jaikiran Pai has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
commit since the last revision:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2025 06:16:14 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
>> Julian Waters has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Remove the got local
>
> Stay open
Hello @TheShermanTanker, I see that this PR is marked as ready for integration
s
Can I please get a review of this doc-only change which proposes to clarify the
current implementation of the `java.util.Properties.list(...)` methods?
As noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8360575, the current
implementation trims each value to a size of 37 when printing out the value
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 13:43:27 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this backport to JDK 25? This backports
> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8359830 which was integrated into
> mainline a few minutes back https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/25865.
>
> With
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 13:10:41 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> The few places where this misreporting of macOS version in os_bsd.cpp is
> going to impact is the VM error reporting (in hs_err files for example) and
> the output of the newly introduced -XX:+PrintJVMInfoAtExit option. So I th
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 13:43:27 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this backport to JDK 25? This backports
> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8359830 which was integrated into
> mainline a few minutes back https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/25865.
>
> With
Can I please get a review of this backport to JDK 25? This backports
https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8359830 which was integrated into mainline
a few minutes back https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/25865.
With this change it should now be possible to test JDK 25 on macOS 26 when it
gets re
On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 10:20:15 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review of this change which proposes to address the issue
>> noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8359830?
>>
>> macOS operating system's newer version 26 (currently in Beta) is
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 06:01:43 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this change which proposes to address the issue
> noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8359830?
>
> macOS operating system's newer version 26 (currently in Beta) is reported as
On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 16:15:29 GMT, Artur Barashev wrote:
>> Daniel Fuchs has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 506 commits:
>>
>> - merge latest changes from master branch
>> - http3: update H3InsertionsLimitTest to sta
On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 10:20:15 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review of this change which proposes to address the issue
>> noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8359830?
>>
>> macOS operating system's newer version 26 (currently in Beta) is
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 01:48:33 GMT, Henry Jen wrote:
>> Create a jar directly from the memory instead of real file, this should
>> reduce the I/O overhead which likely the reason for the time out.
>> The issue is not reproducible locally, and fails intermittently, so we
>> simply trying to reduce
On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 19:48:47 GMT, Artur Barashev wrote:
>> Hello Artur, we currently don't expose the `HandshakeContext` outside of the
>> `QuicTLSEngineImpl`. The `HandshakeContext` is what is needed to get the
>> relevant user specified algorithm constraints. So I decided to let the
>> `Hand
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 06:01:43 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this change which proposes to address the issue
> noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8359830?
>
> macOS operating system's newer version 26 (currently in Beta) is reported as
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 19:13:14 GMT, Artur Barashev wrote:
>> Daniel Fuchs has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 409 commits:
>>
>> - merge latest changes from master branch
>> - http3: add missing separator to Http3Disc
njdk.org/browse/JDK-8253702.
>
> The existing `OsVersionTest` has been updated for some trivial clean up.
> Existing tests in tier1, tier2 and tier3 continue to pass with this change.
> If anyone has access to a macOS 26 Beta, I request them to build this change
> and run `tier1`
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 13:10:41 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Do you think it's OK to go ahead with this integration?
I spoke to Alan about this and Alan says it's OK to do the `os_bsd.cpp` changes
as a separate task. Alan also suggested that the long lines introduced in this
PR could
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 22:21:31 GMT, Artur Barashev wrote:
>> Daniel Fuchs has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 499 commits:
>>
>> - merge latest changes from master branch
>> - http3: improve H3ConnectionPoolTest.java
>
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 22:16:18 GMT, Artur Barashev wrote:
>> Daniel Fuchs has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 499 commits:
>>
>> - merge latest changes from master branch
>> - http3: improve H3ConnectionPoolTest.java
>
On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 16:39:21 GMT, Artur Barashev wrote:
>> Daniel Fuchs has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 506 commits:
>>
>> - merge latest changes from master branch
>> - http3: update H3InsertionsLimitTest to sta
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 13:10:41 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> I've been experimenting with using these Objective-C APIs in this C++ code
> of hotspot, but have been running into build issues. I am currently
> discussing those with people familiar with this area and plan to continue
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 06:01:43 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this change which proposes to address the issue
> noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8359830?
>
> macOS operating system's newer version 26 (currently in Beta) is reported as
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 16:42:16 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>> Can I please get a review of this change which proposes to address the issue
>> noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8359830?
>>
>> macOS operating system's newer version 26 (currently in Beta) is reported as
>> a 16 by older
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 08:07:21 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> I think we are missing a test for this which might explain why tier1, tier2,
> tier3 testing of this current change didn't notice that this area too needs a
> change.
It looks like an existing test
`test/hotspot
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 06:01:43 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Existing tests in tier1, tier2 and tier3 continue to pass with this change.
> If anyone has access to a macOS 26 Beta, I request them to build this change
> and run tier1 tests to help verify that there aren't any failures.
Can I please get a review of this change which proposes to address the issue
noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8359830?
macOS operating system's newer version 26 (currently in Beta) is reported as a
16 by older versions of XCode. JDK internally uses the `NSProcessInfo` and
`NSOperati
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 21:47:49 GMT, Justin Lu wrote:
>> Please review this PR which finishes Applet removal for the test:
>> jdk/internal/loader/URLClassPath/ClassnameCharTest.java.
>>
>> `testclasses.jar` is updated such that the two classes no longer extend
>> Applet.
>>
>>
>> $ javap fo\ o.
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 18:05:04 GMT, Justin Lu wrote:
>> Please review this PR which finishes Applet removal for the test:
>> jdk/internal/loader/URLClassPath/ClassnameCharTest.java.
>>
>> `testclasses.jar` is updated such that the two classes no longer extend
>> Applet.
>>
>>
>> $ javap fo\ o.
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 22:40:43 GMT, Justin Lu wrote:
>> Please review this PR which finishes Applet removal for the test:
>> jdk/internal/loader/URLClassPath/ClassnameCharTest.java.
>>
>> `testclasses.jar` is updated such that the two classes no longer extend
>> Applet.
>>
>>
>> $ javap fo\ o.
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 22:40:43 GMT, Justin Lu wrote:
>> Please review this PR which finishes Applet removal for the test:
>> jdk/internal/loader/URLClassPath/ClassnameCharTest.java.
>>
>> `testclasses.jar` is updated such that the two classes no longer extend
>> Applet.
>>
>>
>> $ javap fo\ o.
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 22:40:43 GMT, Justin Lu wrote:
>> Please review this PR which finishes Applet removal for the test:
>> jdk/internal/loader/URLClassPath/ClassnameCharTest.java.
>>
>> `testclasses.jar` is updated such that the two classes no longer extend
>> Applet.
>>
>>
>> $ javap fo\ o.
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 16:56:48 GMT, Justin Lu wrote:
> so I used the ClassFile API to create those class files.
Use of ClassFile API I think is a good approach.
> Using JDKToolFinder.getCompileJDKTool("jar") with the CF API seems reasonable
> to do all the work dynamically. I will take a look, t
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 20:42:43 GMT, Justin Lu wrote:
> Please review this PR which finishes Applet removal for the test:
> jdk/internal/loader/URLClassPath/ClassnameCharTest.java.
>
> `testclasses.jar` is updated such that the two classes no longer extend
> Applet.
>
>
> $ javap fo\ o.class
>
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 19:07:37 GMT, Artur Barashev wrote:
>> Daniel Fuchs has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 409 commits:
>>
>> - merge latest changes from master branch
>> - http3: add missing separator to Http3Disc
On Mon, 26 May 2025 16:52:56 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> Hello Daniel,
>>
>>> I'd be tempted to say no - except that getReplyBer() will take the markers
>>> out of the queue.
>>
>> That's correct - the change intentionally removes the lock and also lets the
>> close/cancel markers land into t
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 09:53:13 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this change which proposes to address the issue
> noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8349914?
>
> The ZIP specification allows for more than one entry to have the same file
> nam
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 09:53:13 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this change which proposes to address the issue
> noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8349914?
>
> The ZIP specification allows for more than one entry to have the same file
> nam
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 06:47:59 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this trivial doc-only change to the
> `jdk.zipfs`'s documentation? This moves the `accessMode` property listing to
> the top of the table instead of being at the bottom. With this change, the
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 06:47:59 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this trivial doc-only change to the
> `jdk.zipfs`'s documentation? This moves the `accessMode` property listing to
> the top of the table instead of being at the bottom. With this change, the
`create=true` and
> `accessMode=readOnly` has been moved to the `create` property's description.
>
> No functional or specification changes are involved. I verified that the
> generated documentation looks fine too.
Jaikiran Pai has updated the pull request incrementally with one
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 14:56:59 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> src/jdk.zipfs/share/classes/module-info.java line 195:
>>
>>> 193: * If the value is {@code true}, the ZIP file system provider
>>> creates a
>>> 194: * new ZIP or JAR file if it doe
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 09:35:25 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> Jaikiran Pai has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Daniel's suggestion - consistent use of {@code "readOnly"}
>
> src/jdk.
Can I please get a review of this change which proposes to address the issue
noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8349914?
The ZIP specification allows for more than one entry to have the same file name
(and may have different file data). In such situation, as noted in the linked
issue,
Can I please get a review of this trivial doc-only change to the `jdk.zipfs`'s
documentation? This moves the `accessMode` property listing to the top of the
table instead of being at the bottom. With this change, the text about throwing
`IllegalArgumentException` when `create=true` and `accessMo
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 06:47:59 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this trivial doc-only change to the
> `jdk.zipfs`'s documentation? This moves the `accessMode` property listing to
> the top of the table instead of being at the bottom. With this change, the
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 06:35:09 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this change which addresses the issue noted in
> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8358456?
>
> In Java 24, through https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8341597 we did a
> change which st
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 06:35:09 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this change which addresses the issue noted in
> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8358456?
>
> In Java 24, through https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8341597 we did a
> change which st
1 - 100 of 1663 matches
Mail list logo
