Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Sep 19, 2023. It is now read-only.

8279833: Loop optimization issue in String.encodeUTF8_UTF16 #99

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

cl4es
Copy link
Member

@cl4es cl4es commented Jan 13, 2022


Progress

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

Issue

  • JDK-8279833: Loop optimization issue in String.encodeUTF8_UTF16

Reviewers

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk18 pull/99/head:pull/99
$ git checkout pull/99

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/99
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk18 pull/99/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 99

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 99

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk18/pull/99.diff

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

bridgekeeper bot commented Jan 13, 2022

👋 Welcome back redestad! 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 openjdk bot changed the title Backport c3d0a94040d9bd0f4b99da97b89fbfce252a41c0 8279833: Loop optimization issue in String.encodeUTF8_UTF16 Jan 13, 2022
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jan 13, 2022

This backport pull request has now been updated with issue from the original commit.

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jan 13, 2022

@cl4es 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:

8279833: Loop optimization issue in String.encodeUTF8_UTF16

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 no new commits pushed to the master branch. If another commit should be pushed before you perform the /integrate command, your PR will be automatically rebased. If you prefer to avoid any potential 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.

@openjdk openjdk bot added ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Jan 13, 2022
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jan 13, 2022

@cl4es 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.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the core-libs core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net label Jan 13, 2022
@mlbridge
Copy link

mlbridge bot commented Jan 13, 2022

Webrevs

Copy link
Contributor

@RogerRiggs RogerRiggs left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM
(This a backport but is using the mainline bug number; already resolved).

@cl4es
Copy link
Member Author

cl4es commented Jan 13, 2022

LGTM

Thanks!

(This a backport but is using the mainline bug number; already resolved).

I think that's intentional? I entered "Backport COMMITHASH" as the PR subject as per instructions and the bots have taken things from there.

@kevinrushforth
Copy link
Member

kevinrushforth commented Jan 13, 2022

(This a backport but is using the mainline bug number; already resolved).

I think that's intentional? I entered "Backport COMMITHASH" as the PR subject as per instructions and the bots have taken things from there.

Yes, it's both intentional and necessary. We only use the JBS bug ID of the main bug, and never the JBS ID of the backport record (presuming the latter is even created ahead of time, which it usually isn't) in pull requests, commit messages, etc.

@cl4es
Copy link
Member Author

cl4es commented Jan 13, 2022

Thanks for confirming, @kevinrushforth 👍🏽

While creating the backport bug manually isn't strictly necessary, the bots seem to do the right thing if it exists, so I've taken up the (bad?) habit of creating it manually to keep a tab on my current tasks and intents.

@cl4es
Copy link
Member Author

cl4es commented Jan 13, 2022

/integrate

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jan 13, 2022

Going to push as commit ff85659.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Jan 13, 2022
@openjdk openjdk bot closed this Jan 13, 2022
@openjdk openjdk bot removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Jan 13, 2022
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jan 13, 2022

@cl4es Pushed as commit ff85659.

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

@kevinrushforth
Copy link
Member

I've taken up the (bad?) habit of creating it manually to keep a tab on my current tasks and intents.

I do that too in some cases, and for the same reason. The only potential downside is if you create a concrete version for a specific update release and it misses that one and hits the next one, but for that case you can use NN-pool as the fixversion on the backport (and Skara will do the right thing).

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
backport clean core-libs core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net integrated Pull request has been integrated
3 participants