[REFRESH] JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8035279: Clean up internal deprecations in BigInteger
paul.sandoz at oracle.com
Thu Feb 27 08:17:42 UTC 2014
On Feb 27, 2014, at 12:32 AM, Brian Burkhalter <brian.burkhalter at oracle.com> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2014, at 1:29 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>>> I made all suggested changes except the third line below. Why do we test for equality with -3? If the primitive int default value of zero is used, for firstNonzeroIntNumPlusTwo, as it is, then we should still test whether fn equals -2, n'est-ce pas?
>> Oops, Oui. You can probably tell i was experimenting with PlusThree to take into account a 0 magnitude.
> So may I obtain a +1 from a JDK 9 Reviewer now?
Indeed you may.
>>>> We can revisit and clean things up if/when the JMM is updated.
>>> Is there an issue for JMM update to which a comment with a link to this thread could be added?
>> No, there are no issues yet, the discussions are still in flux and nothing concrete has been decided yet. Probably the best way to track as a reminder is to add a new issue for BigInteger to revisit stable fields (JMM) and Unsafe use (Enhanced Volatiles).
> I added a task https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8035906 for this which is linked to another pre-existing one which I thought related.
More information about the core-libs-dev