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

Erik Helin erik.helin at oracle.com
Wed Dec 12 08:01:09 PST 2012


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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>



More information about the hotspot-runtime-dev mailing list