July 2011 - core-libs-dev

Replacement of Quicksort in java.util.Arrays with new Dual-Pivot Quicksort
by Vladimir Yaroslavskiy 27 Feb '16

27 Feb '16

Hello All, I'd like to share with you new Dual-Pivot Quicksort which is faster than the known implementations (theoretically and experimental). I'd like to propose to replace the JDK's Quicksort implementation by new one. Description ----------- The classical Quicksort algorithm uses the following scheme: 1. Pick an element P, called a pivot, from the array. 2. Reorder the array so that all elements, which are less than the pivot, come before the pivot and all elements greater than the pivot come after it (equal values can go either way). After this partitioning, the pivot element is in its final position. 3. Recursively sort the sub-array of lesser elements and the sub-array of greater elements. The invariant of classical Quicksort is: [ <= p | >= p ] There are several modifications of the schema: [ < p | = p | > p ] or [ = p | < p | > p | = p ] But all of them use *one* pivot. The new Dual-Pivot Quicksort uses *two* pivots elements in this manner: 1. Pick an elements P1, P2, called pivots from the array. 2. Assume that P1 <= P2, otherwise swap it. 3. Reorder the array into three parts: those less than the smaller pivot, those larger than the larger pivot, and in between are those elements between (or equal to) the two pivots. 4. Recursively sort the sub-arrays. The invariant of the Dual-Pivot Quicksort is: [ < P1 | P1 <= & <= P2 } > P2 ] The new Quicksort is faster than current implementation of Quicksort in JDK (L. Bentley and M. Douglas McIlroy) and classical Quicksort. The full description of the Dual-Pivot Quicksort you can find on my page: http://iaroslavski.narod.ru/quicksort Performance tests ----------------- Here is result of running on different types of input data: Client VM all 85% organ 0..1 0..4 random ascend descend equal equal pipes random 010101 random Dual-Pivot: 16.83 5.31 5.47 0.35 0.68 10.59 1.06 1.02 2.18 Bentley's: 19.77 9.08 10.13 0.63 1.12 13.22 1.63 1.08 2.49 Server VM all 85% organ 0..1 0..4 random ascend descend equal equal pipes random 010101 random Dual-Pivot: 23.94 6.68 6.63 0.43 0.62 17.14 1.42 1.96 3.41 Bentley's: 25.20 10.18 10.32 2.07 1.33 16.72 2.95 1.82 3.39 The a lot of other tests have been run under client and server mode. The most interesting is BentleyBasher test framework. It runs battery of tests for all cases: { 100, 1000, 10000, 1000000 } x { sawtooth, rand, stagger, plateau, shuffle } x { ident, reverse, reverse_front, reverse_back, sort, dither} where 100, ... , 1000000 - array length sawtooth: x[i] =i%m rand: x[i] = rand() % m stagger: x[i] = (i*m + i) % n plateau: x[i] = min(i, m) shuffle: x[i] = rand()%m? (j+=2): (k+=2) ident(x) - a copy of x reverse(x, 0, n) - reversed copy reverse_front(x, 0, n/2) - front half reversed reverse_back(x, n/2, n) - back half reversed sort(x) - an ordered copy dither(x) - add i%5 to x[i] Here is the result of execution: Server VM: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=t_EAWUkQ4mD3BIbOv8Fa-AQ&output=html Client VM: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tdiMo8xleTxd23nKUObcz0Q&single=true&… Mathematical investigations --------------------------- It is proved that for the Dual-Pivot Quicksort the average number of comparisons is 2*n*ln(n), the average number of swaps is 0.8*n*ln(n), whereas classical Quicksort algorithm has 2*n*ln(n) and 1*n*ln(n) respectively. Full mathematical proof see in attached proof.txt and proof_add.txt files. Theoretical results are also confirmed by experimental counting of the operations. Diff between current and new implementation of Quicksort -------------------------------------------------------- Here is the link to the diff for java.util.Arrays class: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~alanb/6880672/webrev.00 If you like to look and play with new algorithm, please, take attached class DualPivotQuicksort.java Feedback -------- Also I'd like to share a feedback from Joshua Bloch and Jon Bentley who spent a lot of time investigating this algorithm, who gave me many advices and tips how to make new Quicksort better. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Integration of new Dual-Pivot Quicksort into JDK 7 Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 07:20:11 -0700 From: Joshua Bloch <jjb(a)google.com> Jon also says that Vladimir should make every reasonable improvement to the basic method before checking in the code. In his words, "It would be horrible to put the new code into the library, and then have someone else come along and speed it up by another 20% by using standard techniques." I believe it's not unlikely that this code may end up getting ported to many languages and widely deployed in much the manner of Bentley and McIlroy's fine sort (which is nearing 20 successful years in the field). Jon will help Vladimir do this. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Dual-Pivot Quicksort: Next Steps Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:02:25 -0400 From: Jon Bentley <jbentley(a)avaya.com> Vladimir, Josh, I *finally* feel like I understand what is going on. Now that I (think that) I see it, it seems straightforward and obvious. Tony Hoare developed Quicksort in the early 1960s. I was very proud to make minor contributions to a particularly clean (binary) quicksort in the mid 1980s, to a relatively straightforward, industrial strength Quicksort with McIlroy in the early 1990s, and then to algorithms and data structures for strings with Sedgewick in the mid 1990s. I think that Vladimir's contributions to Quicksort go way beyond anything that I've ever done, and rank up there with Hoare's original design and Sedgewick's analysis. I feel so privileged to play a very, very minor role in helping Vladimir with the most excellent work! ----------------------------------------------- Let me know, if you have any questions/comments. Thank you, Vladimir Here is the details between steps (1) and (2) in the case of Dual-Pivot Quicksort: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >From the algorithm above, the average number of comparisons C_n as a function of the number of elements may be represented by the equation: (1) C_n = 1 + 2/(n*(n-1)) * sum_{i=0}^{n-2} sum_{j=i+1}^{n-1} {C_i + 1*i + C_{j-i-1} + 2*(j-i- 1) + C_{n-j-1} + 2*(n-j-1)} Equation (1) means that total number is the sum of the comparison numbers of all cases of partitions into 3 parts plus number of comparisons for elements from left part (one comparison), center and right parts (2 comparisons). !!! It can be rewritten in other way: !!! (2) C_n = 1 + R*(n-2) + 2/(n(n-1)) * sum_{i=0}^{n-2} sum_{j=i+1}^{n-1} {C_i + C_{j-i-1} + C_{n-j-1}} where R is the average number of comparisons during one iteration. This constant R can be found as average value (1 + 2 + 2) / 3 = 5/3 ~ 1.6666. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- How it can be rewritten: We should show that 2/(n*(n-1)) * sum_{i=0}^{n-2} sum_{j=i+1}^{n-1} {i + 2*(j-i- 1) + 2*(n-j-1)} equals to 5/3 * (n-2). Let's consider the double sum: sum_{i=0}^{n-2} sum_{j=i+1}^{n-1} {i + 2*(j-i- 1) + 2*(n-j-1)} = = sum_{i=0}^{n-2} sum_{j=i+1}^{n-1} {2*n - 4} - sum_{i=0}^{n-2} sum_{j=i+1}^{n-1} {i} = = 2*(n-2)*sum_{i=0}^{n-2} {n-1-i} - sum_{i=0}^{n-2} sum_{j=i+1}^{n-1} {i} = = 2*(n-2)*((n-1)^2 - (n-1)*(n-2)/2) - (n-1)*sum_{i=0}^{n-2} {i} + sum_{i=0}^{n-2} {i*i} = ------------------------------------------------------------------ here we use the property: sum_{k=1}{n} {k^2} = n^3/3 + n^2/2 + n/6 ------------------------------------------------------------------ = 2*(n-2)*((n-1)^2 - (n-1)*(n-2)/2) - (n-1)*(n-1)*(n-2)/2 + (n-2)^3/3 + (n-2)^2/2 + (n-2)/6 = = 1/6 * (12*(n-1)^2*(n-2) - 6*(n-1)*(n-2)^2 - 3*(n-1)^2*(n-2) + 2*(n-2)^3 + 3*(n-2)^2 + (n-2)) = = 1/6 * (3*(n-1)*(n-2)*(3*(n-1) - 2*(n-2)) + (n-2)*(2*(n-2)^2 + 3*(n-2) + 1))) = = 1/6 * (3*(n-1)*(n-2)*(n+1) + (n-2)*(2*n^2 - 5*n + 3)) = = 1/6 * (n-2)*(5*n^2 - 5*n) = 5/6 * n*(n-1)*(n-2) Substitute the result into equation (1): (1.1) C_n = 1 + 2/(n*(n-1)) * 5/6 * n*(n-1)*(n-2) + 2/(n*(n-1)) * sum_{i=0}^{n-2} sum_{j=i+1}^{n-1} {C_i + C_{j-i-1} + C_{n-j-1}} or (1.2) C_n = 1 + 5/3*(n-2) + 2/(n*(n-1)) * sum_{i=0}^{n-2} sum_{j=i+1}^{n-1} {C_i + C_{j-i-1} + C_{n-j-1}} We see that (1.2) is same as (2). /** * @author Vladimir Yaroslavskiy * @version 2009.09.10 m765 */ public class DualPivotQuicksort { public static void sort(int[] a) { sort(a, 0, a.length); } public static void sort(int[] a, int fromIndex, int toIndex) { rangeCheck(a.length, fromIndex, toIndex); dualPivotQuicksort(a, fromIndex, toIndex - 1, 3); } private static void rangeCheck(int length, int fromIndex, int toIndex) { if (fromIndex > toIndex) { throw new IllegalArgumentException("fromIndex(" + fromIndex + ") > toIndex(" + toIndex + ")"); } if (fromIndex < 0) { throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(fromIndex); } if (toIndex > length) { throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(toIndex); } } private static void swap(int[] a, int i, int j) { int temp = a[i]; a[i] = a[j]; a[j] = temp; } private static void dualPivotQuicksort(int[] a, int left, int right, int div) { int len = right - left; if (len < 27) { // insertion sort for tiny array for (int i = left + 1; i <= right; i++) { for (int j = i; j > left && a[j] < a[j - 1]; j--) { swap(a, j, j - 1); } } return; } int third = len / div; // "medians" int m1 = left + third; int m2 = right - third; if (m1 <= left) { m1 = left + 1; } if (m2 >= right) { m2 = right - 1; } if (a[m1] < a[m2]) { swap(a, m1, left); swap(a, m2, right); } else { swap(a, m1, right); swap(a, m2, left); } // pivots int pivot1 = a[left]; int pivot2 = a[right]; // pointers int less = left + 1; int great = right - 1; // sorting for (int k = less; k <= great; k++) { if (a[k] < pivot1) { swap(a, k, less++); } else if (a[k] > pivot2) { while (k < great && a[great] > pivot2) { great--; } swap(a, k, great--); if (a[k] < pivot1) { swap(a, k, less++); } } } // swaps int dist = great - less; if (dist < 13) { div++; } swap(a, less - 1, left); swap(a, great + 1, right); // subarrays dualPivotQuicksort(a, left, less - 2, div); dualPivotQuicksort(a, great + 2, right, div); // equal elements if (dist > len - 13 && pivot1 != pivot2) { for (int k = less; k <= great; k++) { if (a[k] == pivot1) { swap(a, k, less++); } else if (a[k] == pivot2) { swap(a, k, great--); if (a[k] == pivot1) { swap(a, k, less++); } } } } // subarray if (pivot1 < pivot2) { dualPivotQuicksort(a, less, great, div); } } } At first consider the classic Quicksort scheme and find the average number of comparisons and swaps for it. We assume that input data is random permutation of n numbers from the range [1..n]. Classic Quicksort ================= 1. Choose a pivot element (take random), 2. Compare each (n-1) elements with the pivot 3. and swap it, if necessary, to have the partitions: [ <= pivot | >= pivot ] 4. Sort recursively left and right parts. >From the algorithm above, the average number of comparisons C_n as a function of the number of elements may be represented by the equation: (1) C_n = (n-1) + 1/n * sum_{k=0}^{n-1} {C_k + C_{n-k-1}} and last sum can be rewritten: (2) C_n = (n-1) + 2/n * sum_{k=0}^{n-1} C_k Write formula (2) for n+1: (3) C_{n+1} = n + 2/(n+1) * sum_{k=0}^{n} C_k Multiply (2) by n and (3) by (n+1) and subtract one from other, we have: (4) (n+1)*C_{n+1} - n*C_n = 2*n + 2*C_n Sorting an array of n elements may be considered as selecting one permutation of the n elements among all possible permutations. The number of possible permutations of n elements is n!, so the task for any sorting algorithm is to determine the one permutation out of n! possibilities. The minimum number of operations (swap and comparisons) for sorting n elements is const*ln(n!). >From the Stirling's formula the approximation of the number of operations is A*n*ln(n) + B*n + C, where A, B and C are constant coefficients. The coefficients B and C are not important for large n. Therefore, the function C_n may be approximated by the equation: (5) C_n = A*n*ln(n) The function C_n is substituted from equation (5) into equation (4), which yields the following equation: (6) (n+1)*A*(n+1)*ln(n+1) - n*A*n*ln(n) = 2*n + 2*A*n*ln(n) Using the properties of logarithms, equation (6) can then be reduced to: (7) n*ln(1+1/n) + 2*ln(1+1/n) + (1/n) * ln(n+1) = 2/A Using a property of logarithm: ln(1 + x) -> x, if x -> 0, and other property: ln(n) / n -> 0, when n -> +oo, equation (7) will be approximated by: (8) 1 + 0 + 0 = 2/A So, the coefficient A is equal to 2 and the average number of comparisons in sorting of n size arrays is (9) C_n = 2*n*ln(n). To find the approximation of the average number of swaps, we use the similar approach as in the case of comparisons. The average number of swaps S_n as a function of the number of elements may be represented by the equation: (10) S_n = 1/2*(n-1) + 2/n * sum_{k=0}^{n-1} S_k We assume that average number of swaps during one iteration is 1/2*(n-1). It means that in average one half of elements is swapped only. Using the same approach, we find that the coefficient A equals to 1. Therefore, the function S_n may be approximated by the equation: (11) S_n = n*ln(n) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now consider the Dual-Pivot Quicksort scheme and find the average number of comparisons and swaps for it. We assume that input data is random permutation of n numbers from the range [1..n]. Dual-Pivot Quicksort ==================== 1. Choose 2 pivot elements pivot1 and pivot2 (take random), 2. pivot1 must be less or equal than pivot2, otherwise they are swapped 3. Compare each (n-2) elements with the pivots 4. and swap it, if necessary, to have the partitions: [ <= p1 | p1 <= & <= p2 | >= p2 ] 5. Sort recursively left, center and right parts. >From the algorithm above, the average number of comparisons C_n as a function of the number of elements may be represented by the equation: (1) C_n = 1 + 2/(n*(n-1)) * sum_{i=0}^{n-2} sum_{j=i+1}^{n-1} {C_i + 1*i + C_{j-i-1} + 2*(j-i-1) + C_{n-j-1} + 2*(n-j-1)} Equation (1) means that total number is the sum of the comparison numbers of all cases of partitions into 3 parts plus number of comparisons for elements from left part (one comparison), center and right parts (2 comparisons). It can be rewritten in other way: (2) C_n = 1 + R*(n-2) + 2/(n(n-1)) * sum_{i=0}^{n-2} sum_{j=i+1}^{n-1} {C_i + C_{j-i-1} + C_{n-j-1}} where R is the average number of comparisons during one iteration. This constant R can be found as average value (1 + 2 + 2) / 3 = 5/3, which means that elements from left part are required only one comparison, and elements form center and right parts - two comparisons. The double sum in equation (2) can be reduced: (3) C_n = 1 + 5/3*(n-2) + 2/(n*(n-1)) * sum_{k=0}^{n-2} {3 * (n-k-1) * C_k} Denote 1 + 5/3*(n-2) by f_n and multiply to n*(n-1): (4) n*(n-1)*C_n = n*(n-1)*f_n + 6 * sum_{k=0}^{n-2} {(n-k-1) * C_k} Write formula (4) for n+1: (5) n*(n+1)*C_{n+1} = n*(n+1)*f_n + 6 * sum_{k=0}^{n-1} {(n-k) * C_k} Subtract (4) from (5), we have: (6) n*(n+1)*C_{n+1} - n*(n-1)*C_n = n*(n+1)*f_n - n*(n-1)*f_n + 6 * sum_{k=0}^{n-2} C_k + 6*C_{n-1} Denote n*(n+1)*C_{n+1} - n*(n-1)*C_n by X_n and n*(n+1)*f_n - n*(n-1)*f_n by F_n: (7) X_n = F_n + 6 * sum_{k=0}^{n-2} C_k + 6*C_{n-1} Write formula (7) for n+1: (8) X_{n+1} = F_{n+1} + 6 * sum_{k=0}^{n-1} C_k + 6*C_n Subtract (7) from (8), we have: (9) X_{n+1} - X_n = F_{n+1} - F_n + 6*C_n Resolving of F_{n+1} - F_n gives: (10) X_{n+1} - X_n = 2 + 10*n + 6*C_n The function X_n is substituted into equation (10), which yields the following equation: (11) (n+1)*(n+2)C_{n+2} -2*n(n+1)*C_{n+1} + (n*(n-1) - 6)*C_n = 2 + 10*n We will find the function C_n approximated by the equation: (12) C_n = A*n*ln(n) The function C_n is substituted from equation (12) into equation (11), which yields the following equation: (13) (n^3+5*n^2+8*n+4)*ln(n+2) - (2*n^3+4*n^2+2*n)*ln(n+1) + (n^3-n^2-6*n)*ln(n) = (10*n+2) / A Using the properties of logarithms, equation (13) can then be reduced to: (14) n^3*(ln(n+2)-2*ln(n+1)+ln(n)) + n^2*(5*ln(n+2)-4*ln(n+1)-ln(n)) + n*(8*ln(n+2)-2*ln(n+1)-6*ln(n)) + 4*ln(n+2) = (10*n+2) / A Using a property of logarithm: ln(1 + x) -> x, if x -> 0, and other property: ln(n) / n -> 0, when n -> +oo, equation (15) will be approximated by: (15) -1 + 4 + 2 + 0 + 0 = 10 / A So, the coefficient A is equal to 2 and the average number of comparisons in sorting of n size arrays is (9) C_n = 2*n*ln(n). To find the approximation of the average number of swaps, we use the similar approach as in the case of comparisons. The average number of swaps S_n as a function of the number of elements may be represented by the equation: (10) S_n = 4 + 2/3*(n-2) + 2/(n*(n-1)) * sum_{k=0}^{n-2} {(n-k-1)*S_k} We assume that average number of swaps during one iteration is 2/3*(n-2). It means that in average one third of elements is swapped only. Using the same approach, we find that the coefficient A equals to 0.8. Therefore, the function S_n may be approximated by the equation: (11) S_n = 0.8*n*ln(n) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- And as summary: The value of the coefficient A: dual-pivot classic comparison: 2.0 2.0 swap: 0.8 1.0

14 20

JDK 8 code review request for 7007535: (reflect) Please generalize Constructor and Method
by joe.darcy＠oracle.com 29 Feb '12

29 Feb '12

Hello. Please code review my JDK 8 changes for 7007535: (reflect) Please generalize Constructor and Method http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/7007535.3 To summarize the changes, a new superclass is defined to capture the common functionality of java.lang.reflect.Method and java.lang.reflect.Constructor. That superclass is named "Executable" along the lines of javax.lang.model.ExecutableElement, which models constructors and methods in the JSR 269 language model. Both specification and implementation code are shared. To preserve the right @since behavior, it is common that in Method/Constructor the javadoc for a method will now look like: /** * {@inheritDoc} * @since 1.5 */ Since Executable is being created in JDK 8, it would be incorrect for methods in that class to have an @since of 1.5; adding the @since in Method/Constructor preserves the right information. It would have been natural to also move common fields to Executable; however, HotSpot treats the Constructor and Method type specially and relies on the existing field ordering. Since altering the field layout would require coordinated HotSpot changes, I'm opting to not perform such a change right now. At least one abstract accessor method is declared in Executable to still allow code sharing even though the required field is not present. In other cases, package private instance methods on Executable are passed the needed state from overridden public methods in Method/Constructor. All java/lang/reflect regression tests pass on a full build with these changes. Thanks, -Joe

6 18

TextArea's/TextField's enableInputMethods is not working on linux
by Sean Chou 06 Dec '11

06 Dec '11

Hi all, I found TextArea's/TextField's enableInputMethods is not working on linux, even enableInputMethods(false) is invocated, the input method can still be enabled. The testcase is as follows: /* * ImfAWTTest.java */ import java.awt.Component; import java.awt.Dimension; import java.awt.FlowLayout; import java.awt.Frame; import java.awt.TextArea; import java.awt.TextField; import java.awt.event.WindowAdapter; import java.awt.event.WindowEvent; import javax.swing.JTextArea; import javax.swing.JTextField; public class ImfAWTTest extends Frame { Component c; public ImfAWTTest() { super("Single Frame --- AWT Frame"); // set layout here. setLayout(new FlowLayout()); // add components here. c = new TextArea("TextArea component(No IM)"); c.enableInputMethods(false); c.setPreferredSize(new Dimension(400, 100)); add(c); c = new JTextArea("JTextArea component"); c.enableInputMethods(true); c.setPreferredSize(new Dimension(400, 100)); add(c); c = new TextField("TextField component(No IM)",52); c.enableInputMethods(false); add(c); c = new JTextField("JTextField component(No IM)"); c.enableInputMethods(false); c.setPreferredSize(new Dimension(400, 20)); add(c); addWindowListener(new WindowAdapter() { public void windowClosing(WindowEvent event) { System.exit(0); } }); setSize(850, 360); setVisible(true); } public static void main(String[] args) { new ImfAWTTest(); } } Reproduce steps are: 1. On linux system, run the testcase with b143. 2. Click 'TextArea component(No IM)'. 3. Switch Ime window, and type some characters into it Expectation: IME cannot be enabled. Result: IME can be used to input. Investigation: This behavior was developed when Java was using Motif library, however Java7's TextArea/TexField does not use Motif any more, so enableInputMethods doesn't work. I suppose we need to update the specification about the behavior. Any comments? -- Best Regards, Sean Chou

3 2

A method with return type size_t returns negative value
by Jing LV 29 Nov '11

29 Nov '11

Hello, I found a problem in windows/native/java/io/io_util_md.c, method handleRead(). The return type of the method is size_t, which is defined as unsigned int. However we see the method would return negative values while it meets some error. This may be a problem as the API comsumer and later developer may have misunderstand it. I suggest modify it to ssize_t (or SSIZE_T as it is on windows). Any comments? -- Best Regards, Jimmy, Jing LV

5 21

Are the faster versions of HashMap and BigInteger going into jdk7?
by Paulo Levi 03 Sep '11

03 Sep '11

Just a question.

8 12

Review request for 7020513 : Add com.sun.xml.internal to the "package.access" property in java.security
by Rama Pulavarthi 29 Aug '11

29 Aug '11

Hi, Need reviewer for CR 7020513: Add com.sun.xml.internal to the "package.access" property in $JAVA_HOME/lib/security/java.security Webrev is available at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ohair/openjdk7/jdk7-tl-jaxws-7020513/webrev/ thanks, Rama Pulavarthi

6 12

Request for review: Make MethodHandleProxies.isSingleMethod() agnostic of ordering of methods returned from Class.getMethods()
by Neil Richards 08 Aug '11

08 Aug '11

java.lang.invoke.MethodHandleProxies.isSingleMethod(Class<?> intf) returns a boolean indicating whether the provided interface has only one defined method upon it. When making this consideration, it tries not count any method defined on the interface that is also defined by java.lang.Object (and so will always be there for all implementations of the interface). Because of this, for example, isSingleMethod should return 'true' for java.util.Comparator, which has two defined methods - compare() and equals() - as all but one of these methods are also defined by java.lang.Object. isSingleMethod() makes the consideration my iterating through the array of Method objects returned from Class.getMethods(). The API javadoc for Class.getMethods() [1] says (amongst other things): "The elements in the array returned are not sorted and are not in any particular order." However, isSingleMethod() currently relies upon any methods defined on java.lang.Object appearing in the list before any others. I suppose this happens to be the case currently (at least, when using hotspot), but it is a generally brittle assumption for this code to rely upon. Please find below a suggested change which removes this assumption by making the algorithm agnostic to the ordering returned by Class.getMethods(). Please consider this change for committal. Thanks, Neil [1] http://download.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/lang/Class.html#getMethod… -- Unless stated above: IBM email: neil_richards at uk.ibm.com IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU # HG changeset patch # User Neil Richards <neil.richards(a)ngmr.net>, <neil_richards(a)uk.ibm.com> # Date 1311156497 -3600 # Branch ojdk-131 # Node ID 1062362b6e7a39d9bc3f468cfd33ae100371413e # Parent 8bbea505b060fc7c97d9c241f8531a2a758cbe20 Summary: Make isSingleMethod() agnostic of ordering of methods returned from Class.getMethods() Contributed-by: <neil.richards(a)ngmr.net> diff -r 8bbea505b060 -r 1062362b6e7a src/share/classes/java/lang/invoke/MethodHandleProxies.java --- a/src/share/classes/java/lang/invoke/MethodHandleProxies.java Mon Jul 18 22:25:58 2011 +0100 +++ b/src/share/classes/java/lang/invoke/MethodHandleProxies.java Wed Jul 20 11:08:17 2011 +0100 @@ -246,8 +246,8 @@ Method sm = null; for (Method m : intfc.getMethods()) { int mod = m.getModifiers(); - if (Modifier.isAbstract(mod)) { - if (sm != null && !isObjectMethod(sm)) + if (Modifier.isAbstract(mod) && !isObjectMethod(m)) { + if (sm != null) return null; // too many abstract methods sm = m; }

3 3

ArrayList.subList
by Doug Lea 30 Jul '11

30 Jul '11

While puzzling over why one of the demo videos on ForkJoin out there required surprisingly high sequential thresholds, I noticed that ArrayList.subList creates lists with per-access overhead proportional to the sublist depth. Which is not at all conducive to recursive use. Does anyone know any reason why this was done? (No one who I thought would know the answer does.) It is easy to keep the overhead flat (we do so in CopyOnWriteArrayList and the new jsr166e.extra ReadMostlyVector.) If no one knows a reason not to, I'll put together a patch. (I have a vague deja vu feeling that I might have done this once before years ago...) -Doug

2 4

hg: jdk8/tl/jdk: 7072523: java.math should be built with javac -Xlint:all -Werror
by jonathan.gibbons＠oracle.com 30 Jul '11

30 Jul '11

Changeset: 4030297803eb Author: jjg Date: 2011-07-29 16:45 -0700 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/4030297803eb 7072523: java.math should be built with javac -Xlint:all -Werror Reviewed-by: darcy Contributed-by: alexandre.boulgakov(a)oracle.com ! make/java/math/Makefile

1 0

Code review request: 7072523 java.math should be built with javac -Xlint:all -Werror
by Alexandre Boulgakov 29 Jul '11

29 Jul '11

Hello Joe, Could you review the attached two-line update to ensure that no javac warnings are introduced into java.math? Bug detail: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7072523 Thanks, Sasha

2 1