On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:54:26 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
>> Shaojin Wen has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> copyright
>
> Re dougxc: This migration is specific to the Java language. I am not so sure
> about the C++ counterparts,
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 00:37:16 GMT, Shaojin Wen wrote:
>> The type of the Unsafe base offset constant is int, which may cause overflow
>> when adding int offsets, such as 8343925 (PR #22012). 8343984 (PR #22027)
>> fixes most of the offset overflows in JDK, but ArraysSupport and CRC32C are
>> st
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 00:37:16 GMT, Shaojin Wen wrote:
>> The type of the Unsafe base offset constant is int, which may cause overflow
>> when adding int offsets, such as 8343925 (PR #22012). 8343984 (PR #22027)
>> fixes most of the offset overflows in JDK, but ArraysSupport and CRC32C are
>> st
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 00:37:16 GMT, Shaojin Wen wrote:
>> The type of the Unsafe base offset constant is int, which may cause overflow
>> when adding int offsets, such as 8343925 (PR #22012). 8343984 (PR #22027)
>> fixes most of the offset overflows in JDK, but ArraysSupport and CRC32C are
>> st
> The type of the Unsafe base offset constant is int, which may cause overflow
> when adding int offsets, such as 8343925 (PR #22012). 8343984 (PR #22027)
> fixes most of the offset overflows in JDK, but ArraysSupport and CRC32C are
> still unfixed.
>
> @liach proposed the idea of changing th
> The type of the Unsafe base offset constant is int, which may cause overflow
> when adding int offsets, such as 8343925 (PR #22012). 8343984 (PR #22027)
> fixes most of the offset overflows in JDK, but ArraysSupport and CRC32C are
> still unfixed.
>
> @liach proposed the idea of changing th
> The type of the Unsafe base offset constant is int, which may cause overflow
> when adding int offsets, such as 8343925 (PR #22012). 8343984 (PR #22027)
> fixes most of the offset overflows in JDK, but ArraysSupport and CRC32C are
> still unfixed.
>
> @liach proposed the idea of changing th
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 18:05:44 GMT, Shaojin Wen wrote:
>> The type of the Unsafe base offset constant is int, which may cause overflow
>> when adding int offsets, such as 8343925 (PR #22012). 8343984 (PR #22027)
>> fixes most of the offset overflows in JDK, but ArraysSupport and CRC32C are
>> st
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 18:05:44 GMT, Shaojin Wen wrote:
>> The type of the Unsafe base offset constant is int, which may cause overflow
>> when adding int offsets, such as 8343925 (PR #22012). 8343984 (PR #22027)
>> fixes most of the offset overflows in JDK, but ArraysSupport and CRC32C are
>> st
> The type of the Unsafe base offset constant is int, which may cause overflow
> when adding int offsets, such as 8343925 (PR #22012). 8343984 (PR #22027)
> fixes most of the offset overflows in JDK, but ArraysSupport and CRC32C are
> still unfixed.
>
> @liach proposed the idea of changing th
> The type of the Unsafe base offset constant is int, which may cause overflow
> when adding int offsets, such as 8343925 (PR #22012). 8343984 (PR #22027)
> fixes most of the offset overflows in JDK, but ArraysSupport and CRC32C are
> still unfixed.
>
> @liach proposed the idea of changing th
On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 10:27:17 GMT, ExE Boss wrote:
> Should the CSR FAQ be updated to remove references to jdk.*, or are there
> some jdk.* packages that require a CSR? As far as I can tell, none are
> exported.
The "Design principles" section of JEP 200 may be help. Standard modules, as in
ja
On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 04:23:26 GMT, Dean Long wrote:
> Should the CSR FAQ be updated to remove references to `jdk.*,` or are there
> some jdk.* packages that require a CSR? As far as I can tell, none are
> exported.
The `jdk.incubator.*` packages (such as `jdk.incubator.vector`) are exported.
-
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 01:04:58 GMT, Shaojin Wen wrote:
>> The type of the Unsafe base offset constant is int, which may cause overflow
>> when adding int offsets, such as 8343925 (PR #22012). 8343984 (PR #22027)
>> fixes most of the offset overflows in JDK, but ArraysSupport and CRC32C are
>> st
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 01:04:58 GMT, Shaojin Wen wrote:
>> The type of the Unsafe base offset constant is int, which may cause overflow
>> when adding int offsets, such as 8343925 (PR #22012). 8343984 (PR #22027)
>> fixes most of the offset overflows in JDK, but ArraysSupport and CRC32C are
>> st
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 01:05:10 GMT, ExE Boss wrote:
>> Doesn't this break any apps that use these offsets? Aren't these fields
>> part of the public API of Unsafe, so changing them requires a CSR?
>
> @dean-long
>> Doesn't this break any apps that use these offsets? Aren't these fields part
>> o
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 01:05:10 GMT, ExE Boss wrote:
>> Doesn't this break any apps that use these offsets? Aren't these fields
>> part of the public API of Unsafe, so changing them requires a CSR?
>
> @dean-long
>> Doesn't this break any apps that use these offsets? Aren't these fields part
>> o
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 01:04:58 GMT, Shaojin Wen wrote:
>> The type of the Unsafe base offset constant is int, which may cause overflow
>> when adding int offsets, such as 8343925 (PR #22012). 8343984 (PR #22027)
>> fixes most of the offset overflows in JDK, but ArraysSupport and CRC32C are
>> st
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 23:20:23 GMT, Dean Long wrote:
>> The type of the Unsafe base offset constant is int, which may cause overflow
>> when adding int offsets, such as 8343925 (PR #22012). 8343984 (PR #22027)
>> fixes most of the offset overflows in JDK, but ArraysSupport and CRC32C are
>> stil
> The type of the Unsafe base offset constant is int, which may cause overflow
> when adding int offsets, such as 8343925 (PR #22012). 8343984 (PR #22027)
> fixes most of the offset overflows in JDK, but ArraysSupport and CRC32C are
> still unfixed.
>
> @liach proposed the idea of changing th
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 05:32:34 GMT, Shaojin Wen wrote:
> The type of the Unsafe base offset constant is int, which may cause overflow
> when adding int offsets, such as 8343925 (PR #22012). 8343984 (PR #22027)
> fixes most of the offset overflows in JDK, but ArraysSupport and CRC32C are
> still
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 05:32:34 GMT, Shaojin Wen wrote:
> The type of the Unsafe base offset constant is int, which may cause overflow
> when adding int offsets, such as 8343925 (PR #22012). 8343984 (PR #22027)
> fixes most of the offset overflows in JDK, but ArraysSupport and CRC32C are
> still
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 05:32:34 GMT, Shaojin Wen wrote:
> The type of the Unsafe base offset constant is int, which may cause overflow
> when adding int offsets, such as 8343925 (PR #22012). 8343984 (PR #22027)
> fixes most of the offset overflows in JDK, but ArraysSupport and CRC32C are
> still
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 13:44:10 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
> I think you should convert all array index scales to long too. They are
> susceptible to the same overflow problem (actually more susceptible as they
> involve in integer multiplications)
The only places in JDK where there is a risk of offs
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 14:41:13 GMT, Glavo wrote:
>> The type of the Unsafe base offset constant is int, which may cause overflow
>> when adding int offsets, such as 8343925 (PR #22012). 8343984 (PR #22027)
>> fixes most of the offset overflows in JDK, but ArraysSupport and CRC32C are
>> still un
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 05:32:34 GMT, Shaojin Wen wrote:
> The type of the Unsafe base offset constant is int, which may cause overflow
> when adding int offsets, such as 8343925 (PR #22012). 8343984 (PR #22027)
> fixes most of the offset overflows in JDK, but ArraysSupport and CRC32C are
> still
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 13:44:10 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
> I think you should convert all array index scales to long too. They are
> susceptible to the same overflow problem (actually more susceptible as they
> involve in integer multiplications)
Changing the index scale to long type will cause a l
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 05:32:34 GMT, Shaojin Wen wrote:
> The type of the Unsafe base offset constant is int, which may cause overflow
> when adding int offsets, such as 8343925 (PR #22012). 8343984 (PR #22027)
> fixes most of the offset overflows in JDK, but ArraysSupport and CRC32C are
> still
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 05:32:34 GMT, Shaojin Wen wrote:
> The type of the Unsafe base offset constant is int, which may cause overflow
> when adding int offsets, such as 8343925 (PR #22012). 8343984 (PR #22027)
> fixes most of the offset overflows in JDK, but ArraysSupport and CRC32C are
> still
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:08:08 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> The type of the Unsafe base offset constant is int, which may cause overflow
>> when adding int offsets, such as 8343925 (PR #22012). 8343984 (PR #22027)
>> fixes most of the offset overflows in JDK, but ArraysSupport and CRC32C are
>> s
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 05:32:34 GMT, Shaojin Wen wrote:
> The type of the Unsafe base offset constant is int, which may cause overflow
> when adding int offsets, such as 8343925 (PR #22012). 8343984 (PR #22027)
> fixes most of the offset overflows in JDK, but ArraysSupport and CRC32C are
> still
The type of the Unsafe base offset constant is int, which may cause overflow
when adding int offsets, such as 8343925 (PR #22012). 8343984 (PR #22027) fixes
most of the offset overflows in JDK, but ArraysSupport and CRC32C are still
unfixed.
@liach proposed the idea of changing the Unsafe bas
32 matches
Mail list logo
