Code review request for 6253144: Long narrowing conversion should describe the algorithm used and implied "risks"

[joe.darcy at oracle.com]

On 6/22/2011 8:52 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>
>
> 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"
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/6253144.0/
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Chris,
>>
>> 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!
>
> -Chris.
>

Hello.

FYI, fix pushed to JDK 8 tl:
    http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/151756a4037b

Thanks,

-Joe