RFR-JDK8012108

[Kurchi Subhra Hazra]

On Apr 20, 2013, at 3:16 AM, Dmitry Samersoff <dmitry.samersoff at oracle.com> wrote:

> John,
> 
> 102, 145 else is redundant.
> 
> 438  - we will crash here if start is null


Maybe it is good to have an additional check for start != null, but from what I see, start will not be null if *netaddrPP is not null.





> 
> -Dmitry
> 
> 
> On 2013-04-20 01:33, John Zavgren wrote:
>> Greetings:
>> 
>> I fixed the bad realloc pattern. Please let me know what you think.
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jzavgren/8012108/webrev.02/
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> John Z
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: chris.hegarty at oracle.com
>> To: net-dev at openjdk.java.net, john.zavgren at oracle.com
>> Cc: Dmitry.Samersoff at oracle.com
>> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 8:59:25 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
>> Subject: Re: RFR-JDK8012108
>> 
>> On 18/04/2013 22:11, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
>>> John,
>>> 
>>> I see bad realloc pattern here. Could you fix it as well?
>> 
>> Yes, please. Otherwise the changes look fine.
>> 
>> -Chris.
>> 
>>> 
>>> e.g.
>>> 
>>> 93     adapterInfo = (IP_ADAPTER_ADDRESSES *) realloc (adapterInfo, len);
>>> 
>>> -Dmitry
>>> 
>>> On 2013-04-19 00:56, John Zavgren wrote:
>>>> Greetings:
>>>> 
>>>> I fixed a case in the windows native code where calloc() was being used
>>>> without checking it's returned value.
>>>> 
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jzavgren/8012108/webrev.01/
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> John Zavgren
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dmitry Samersoff
> Oracle Java development team, Saint Petersburg, Russia
> * Give Rabbit time, and he'll always get the answer