8288594: Address possibly lossy conversions in java.base FloatToDecimal

[asotona]

One new case of possibly lossy conversions recently appeared in jdk.internal.math.FloatToDecimal.
This patch avoids the warning by explicit cast from long to int.

Please review.

Thanks,
Adam

---

Progress

• Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

• JDK-8288594: Address possibly lossy conversions in java.base FloatToDecimal

Reviewers

• Roger Riggs (@RogerRiggs - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk pull/9188/head:pull/9188
$ git checkout pull/9188

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/9188
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk pull/9188/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 9188

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 9188

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/9188.diff

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back asotona! 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.

[openjdk]

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

• core-libs

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.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 00: Full (5dedce30)

[openjdk]

@asotona This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8288594: Address possibly lossy conversions in java.base FloatToDecimal

Reviewed-by: rriggs

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 2 new commits pushed to the master branch:

• ce5024f: 8288468: Avoid redundant HashMap.get call in NegotiateAuthentication.firstToken
• 8fc8fdc: 8287905: Reduce runtime of java.nio microbenchmarks

Please see this link for an up-to-date comparison between the source branch of this pull request and the master branch.
As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

[asotona]

/integrate

[openjdk]

Going to push as commit e7d52e2.
Since your change was applied there have been 3 commits pushed to the master branch:

• 2cf7c01: 8288478: AArch64: Clean up whitespace in assembler_aarch64.hpp
• ce5024f: 8288468: Avoid redundant HashMap.get call in NegotiateAuthentication.firstToken
• 8fc8fdc: 8287905: Reduce runtime of java.nio microbenchmarks

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

[openjdk]

@asotona Pushed as commit e7d52e2.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.

[mlbridge]

Mailing list message from Raffaello Giulietti on core-libs-dev:

Although the conversion is mathematically sound and never lossy, this
change should probably be backported to 19 as well.

Greetings
Raffaello

On 2022-06-16 19:01, Adam Sotona wrote:

[mlbridge]

Mailing list message from Raffaello Giulietti on core-libs-dev:

Ah, no, it's a P4 bug.
Sorry for the noise

On 2022-06-16 23:57, Raffaello Giulietti wrote:

Although the conversion is mathematically sound and never lossy, this
change should probably be backported to 19 as well.

Greetings
Raffaello

On 2022-06-16 19:01, Adam Sotona wrote: