RFR: JDK-8185365 Tidy up leftover dead code after JDK-8136570

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

RFR: JDK-8185365 Tidy up leftover dead code after JDK-8136570

Martin Buchholz-3
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: RFR: JDK-8185365 Tidy up leftover dead code after JDK-8136570

roger riggs
Look fine Martin.

Roger

On 7/26/2017 5:20 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>     1. JDK-8185365 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8185365>
>
> Tidy up leftover dead code after JDK-8136570
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk10/post-8136570-tidy/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: RFR: JDK-8185365 Tidy up leftover dead code after JDK-8136570

Alan Bateman
In reply to this post by Martin Buchholz-3


On 26/07/2017 22:20, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>     1. JDK-8185365 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8185365>
>
> Tidy up leftover dead code after JDK-8136570
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk10/post-8136570-tidy/
This looks okay to me.

-Alan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: RFR: JDK-8185365 Tidy up leftover dead code after JDK-8136570

Philip Race
Ok by me too ... it would not have crossed my mind to look at ProcessBuilder
but I suppose it was trying to support the now deleted behaviours.

-phil.

On 7/27/17, 6:29 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:

>
>
> On 26/07/2017 22:20, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>>     1. JDK-8185365 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8185365>
>>
>> Tidy up leftover dead code after JDK-8136570
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk10/post-8136570-tidy/
> This looks okay to me.
>
> -Alan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: RFR: JDK-8185365 Tidy up leftover dead code after JDK-8136570

Martin Buchholz-3
Some ancient history: I wrote those ProcessBuilder tests back in 2005 and
tripped over the changes to NLSPATH and XFILESEARCHPATH.  I filed a bug
back then, but it did not get fixed.  I rediscovered those changes a decade
later when putenv/getenv was found to be the root cause of SIGSEGV in real
world usage.

I had forgotten about my workarounds in the ProcessBuilder test;
rediscovered by recursive grep, which is still my workhorse code
understanding tool.


On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Philip Race <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Ok by me too ... it would not have crossed my mind to look at
> ProcessBuilder
> but I suppose it was trying to support the now deleted behaviours.
>
> -phil.
>
>
> On 7/27/17, 6:29 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 26/07/2017 22:20, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>>
>>>     1. JDK-8185365 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8185365>
>>>
>>> Tidy up leftover dead code after JDK-8136570
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk10/post-8136570-tidy/
>>>
>> This looks okay to me.
>>
>> -Alan
>>
>
Loading...