RFR (XS): 8234127: BasicHashtable does not support small table_size

[Jiangli Zhou]

Hi Man,

Just took a look. Looks fine to me as well.

It's not directly related, I'm wondering why such small hashtable is
needed in your use case.

Thanks,
Jiangli

On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 11:19 AM Man Cao <manc at google.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the review. Yes, I will try using ResourceHashtable in new code.
> The BasicHashtable does not work with size 2 and 3, either. In my use case,
> the initial size is based on a JVM flag (G1UpdateBufferSize), so it is
> dependent on user input.
>
> -Man
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 10:52 AM <coleen.phillimore at oracle.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > This fix seems fine, but having a hashtable with a starting length 1
> > seems silly.   Unless I'm reading this wrong.   As Ioi wrote in his
> > comment, there might be a better hashtable for your work.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Coleen
> >
> > On 11/13/19 8:00 PM, Man Cao wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Can I have reviews for this small bug fix?
> > > Webrev: https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~manc/8234127/webrev.00/
> > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8234127
> > >
> > > I'm trying to make use of KVHashtable in JDK-8087198 and encountered this
> > > bug.
> > >
> > > -Man
> >
> >