RFR 7118066: Warnings in java.util.concurrent package (original) (raw)

Rémi Forax forax at univ-mlv.fr
Tue Dec 6 01:45:47 UTC 2011

On 12/06/2011 02:12 AM, David Holmes wrote:

Chris, Doug,

A few nits see below. Cheers, David ----- As a matter of style can we ensure annotations are on separate lines. I find this: @SuppressWarnings("unchecked") E x = (E) items[takeIndex]; hard to read. (I hate seeing local variable annotations in the first place - way too much clutter in my opinion.) Is the reason for constructs like this: HashEntry<K,V>[] tab = (HashEntry<K,V>[])new HashEntry[cap]; that we can't utilize diamond? Otherwise it would nicely reduce to: HashEntry<K,V>[] tab = new HashEntry<>[cap];

This should not compile because otherwise you can write HashEntry<String,String>[] tab = new HashEntry<>[12]; Object[] o = tab; o[1] = new HashEntry<Integer, Integer>(); The VM should reject the line above by throwing an ArrayStoreException but because of the erasure, it will not. So creating an array of parameterized type is only possible if you create a reifed type that inherits from an array of parameterized type.

By example, this code is valid: enum Foo { foo } Enum[] enums = Foo.values();

Rémi

On 6/12/2011 1:36 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote: Cleanup warnings in the j.u.c. package. This is a sync up with the warning fixes in Doug's CVS. There are also a few style cleanups, import fixes, trivial local variable renaming, typos, etc. But nothing too surprising! http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/7118066/webrev.00/webrev/ -Chris. P.S. I have already reviewed this, and the contribution is of course from Doug.

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list