Activity
From 07/19/2015 to 08/17/2015
08/17/2015
- 07:57 AM Bug #2638 (Closed): improve performance of user-def function calls converted to java method calls
08/15/2015
- 03:22 AM Bug #2638: improve performance of user-def function calls converted to java method calls
- Branch 2638a rev 10925 was merged to trunk rev 10923 and archived. Notification email was sent.
- 03:19 AM Bug #2638: improve performance of user-def function calls converted to java method calls
- Rebased branch 2638 from trunk rev 10922 (new branch rev 10925).
08/14/2015
- 02:52 PM Bug #2638: improve performance of user-def function calls converted to java method calls
- My testing of this update (i.e., branch rev. 10922) has gone well. I'm comfortable with you merging these changes int...
- 02:07 PM Bug #2638: improve performance of user-def function calls converted to java method calls
- Branch 2638 rev 10923 passed runtime testing.
Rebased branch 2638 from trunk rev 10921 (new branch rev 10924).
08/13/2015
- 06:08 PM Bug #2638: improve performance of user-def function calls converted to java method calls
- Eric: conversion passed, all changes are OK and expected.
Compilation fails because of hand-written java functions... - 04:59 PM Bug #2638: improve performance of user-def function calls converted to java method calls
- I've added a small fix to rev 10922 - Added @BlockManager.markPendingDynCall@ to @ControlFlowOps.initializeExternalPr...
- 04:53 PM Bug #2638: improve performance of user-def function calls converted to java method calls
- Code review 2638a/10921:
Changes look good. I'll report results of use with server after overnight conversion and ... - 04:50 PM Bug #2638: improve performance of user-def function calls converted to java method calls
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> To be more specific:
> - if there is only generated code, @resolveClosestMethod@ will n... - 04:48 PM Bug #2638: improve performance of user-def function calls converted to java method calls
- Eric Faulhaber wrote:
> Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> > I've committed to rev 10921 the fix - it was pretty simple in... - 04:42 PM Bug #2638: improve performance of user-def function calls converted to java method calls
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> I've committed to rev 10921 the fix - it was pretty simple in the end, just bypass @Proc... - 04:37 PM Bug #2638: improve performance of user-def function calls converted to java method calls
- Created task branch 2638a.
I've committed to rev 10921 the fix - it was pretty simple in the end, just bypass @Pro... - 04:28 PM Bug #2638: improve performance of user-def function calls converted to java method calls
Greg,
On another thought, this is need only for user-defined function calls; so adding new parameters to the exi...- 04:27 PM Bug #2638 (Closed): improve performance of user-def function calls converted to java method calls
- 12:18 PM Bug #2637: batch client needs to detect if the client process has output redirected and change er...
- I don't think the @OutputManager.activateBatch(false);@ calls throughout @ThinClient@ and @Window@ are properly balan...
- 11:06 AM Bug #2637: batch client needs to detect if the client process has output redirected and change er...
- When a _progres executible launches, it can detect if its standard output is redirected. In batch mode, this changes...
- 11:04 AM Bug #2637 (New): batch client needs to detect if the client process has output redirected and cha...
08/06/2015
07/28/2015
- 08:03 AM Bug #2592: improve support for implicit type conversions
- The 2592a/10900 was merged to trunk as revision 10901 and the notification email was sent to team.
07/24/2015
- 12:27 PM Bug #2592: improve support for implicit type conversions
- The 2592a/10900 passed the regression testing. The harness results were saved as /opt/secure/clients/timco/majic_test...
07/23/2015
- 06:04 PM Bug #2592: improve support for implicit type conversions
- Code review 2592a/10900.
The changes look good. Please regression test and merge into trunk as soon as possible. - 04:17 PM Bug #2592: improve support for implicit type conversions
- I did a quick test and the warning is gone with the small change. I committed the update on 2592 as revno 10900.
- 03:21 PM Bug #2592: improve support for implicit type conversions
- Greg,
I will add the requested notes in javadocs.
Eric,
2592a it is, I mistyped.
Thanks. I am replacing the @H... - 03:10 PM Bug #2592: improve support for implicit type conversions
- Ovidiu Maxiniuc wrote:
> The BDT has the @equals()@ method overridden so two different java objects (an @integer@ an... - 03:08 PM Bug #2592: improve support for implicit type conversions
- > I used a Map having BaseDataType as keys. This is a very bad option! We should never use BDT for keying/fast looku...
- 02:41 PM Bug #2592: improve support for implicit type conversions
- Eric,
I found out why the server log is filled with @Two AbstractOutputParameterAssigner configured with same wrap...
07/21/2015
- 03:26 PM Bug #2592: improve support for implicit type conversions
- The 2582 branch advanced to revno 10916 after it was rebased with trunk revno 10897. There were no conflicts.
Then i... - 02:26 PM Bug #2592: improve support for implicit type conversions
- Please go ahead and rebase. If there are no conflicts as expected, go ahead and merge into the trunk.
- 01:43 PM Bug #2592: improve support for implicit type conversions
- Eric Faulhaber wrote:
> Code review 2592/10915:
>
> The items from the previous code review appear to have been a... - 01:10 PM Bug #2592: improve support for implicit type conversions
- Code review 2592/10915:
The items from the previous code review appear to have been addressed.
Ovidiu, what is ...
07/20/2015
- 10:08 AM Bug #2592: improve support for implicit type conversions
- > Using the BaseDataType could be a solution, but we need to store somewhere the compatibility matrix. I guess this w...
Also available in: Atom