Code review request for 6253144: Long narrowing conversion should describe the algorithm used and implied "risks"
chris.hegarty at oracle.com
Wed Jun 22 15:52:35 UTC 2011
On 06/22/11 04:47 PM, Joe Darcy wrote:
> David Holmes wrote:
>> Hi Joe,
>> Joe Darcy said the following on 06/18/11 11:38:
>>> Please review this (somewhat tedious) change to make the behavior of
>>> the Number subtypes in the JDK more explicit:
>>> 6253144: Long narrowing conversion should describe the algorithm used
>>> and implied "risks"
>>> David, how are changes to AtomicInteger and AtomicLong managed?
>> Normally they would go into Doug Lea's CVS for jsr166, we (Chris
>> Hegarty) would pull them over and then push to OpenJDK. It can work
>> the other way but the sync's can get messier.
> Off-list, Mike approved this set of changes and I'd like to get them
> pushed once the matching ccc is approved. (The ccc request is needed
> since the long-standing behavior of the non-abstract methods on number
> is being specified.)
> How would you like to handle updates to the Atomic classes?
I think in this case it should be fine to make the changes in OpenJDK
first. Then I can create a patch for the Atomic changes based on Dougs CVS.
I'll double check this with Doug, but unless you hear otherwise let's
assume we can do this. In fact, if Doug is watching he may be able to
move faster than us!
More information about the core-libs-dev