RFR (XS): 8004661: Comment and function name java_lang_String::toHash is wrong

[Erik Helin]

Thanks!

Erik

On 12/13/2012 12:52 AM, David Holmes wrote:
> Looks fine to me still.
>
> David
>
> On 13/12/2012 2:01 AM, Erik Helin wrote:
>> On 12/12/2012 04:10 PM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>>> On 12/12/2012 8:42 AM, Erik Helin wrote:
>>>> Bengt,
>>>>
>>>> On 12/12/2012 01:15 PM, Bengt Rutisson wrote:
>>>>> Shouldn't the method be called hash_code() rather than hashCode() ?
>>>>
>>>> This is the standard we use throughout the codebase for the C++ code,
>>>> but I believe that the Coleen wanted the name of the method to match
>>>> the Java one.
>>>>
>>>> Coleen, did I understand this correctly?
>>>>
>>>> I'm fine with using any one of hashCode or hash_code, I think both
>>>> suggestions make sense.
>>>
>>> Yes, I think it should be hash_code to follow our coding conventions but
>>> the comments should say hashCode (to match the jdk name). Otherwise,
>>> looks great.
>>
>> Thanks, I've the updated webrev to use hash_code instead of hashCode for
>> the C++ function names, please see:
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ehelin/8004661/webrev.01/
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Erik
>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Coleen
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/12/2012 01:15 PM, Bengt Rutisson wrote:
>>>>> Other than that it looks good to me.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Erik
>>>>
>>>>> Bengt
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/12/12 10:27 AM, Erik Helin wrote:
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the webrev is located at:
>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ehelin/8004661/webrev.00/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bug:
>>>>>> http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=8004661
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Summary:
>>>>>> I've renamed the function to_hash to hashCode and also updated the
>>>>>> comments to use hashCode instead of to_hash.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Testing:
>>>>>> JPRT
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Erik
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>