Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

8258955: XBuffer.slice(int,int) fails to adjust index according to primitive size #1906

Closed

Conversation

@ChrisHegarty
Copy link
Member

@ChrisHegarty ChrisHegarty commented Dec 29, 2020

Scale the slice start index per carrier width, for views of direct byte buffers. This never worked correctly since being added in Java 13.


Progress

  • Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
  • Commit message must refer to an issue
  • Change must be properly reviewed

Integration blocker

 ⚠️ Title mismatch between PR and JBS for issue JDK-8258955

Issue

  • JDK-8258955: (bf) slice(int, int) on view buffers fails to adjust index according to primitive size ⚠️ Title mismatch between PR and JBS.

Reviewers

Download

$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/1906/head:pull/1906
$ git checkout pull/1906

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

@bridgekeeper bridgekeeper bot commented Dec 29, 2020

👋 Welcome back chegar! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

Loading

@openjdk openjdk bot added the rfr label Dec 29, 2020
@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Dec 29, 2020

@ChrisHegarty The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

  • nio

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

Loading

@openjdk openjdk bot added the nio label Dec 29, 2020
@mlbridge
Copy link

@mlbridge mlbridge bot commented Dec 29, 2020

Webrevs

Loading

Copy link
Contributor

@AlanBateman AlanBateman left a comment

Thanks for picking this up an oversight when it was added in Java 13 and something we missed when reviewing and testing.

As this is a P3 issue then we could potentially fix this in openjdk/jdk16 during RDP1. If not, it might be something to put into 16.0.1 or 16.0.2.

Loading

@ChrisHegarty
Copy link
Member Author

@ChrisHegarty ChrisHegarty commented Dec 30, 2020

Closing this PR. Instead a PR has been raised against the jdk16 fork, see openjdk/jdk16#73.

Loading

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
2 participants