On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 23:32:52 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
> The skara tooling does not currently support our rules but it remains as
> always that non-trivial Hotspot changes require two reviewers.
Thanks, I will keep this in mind. And I apologise for not following the
process, though not
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:49:31 GMT, Jaroslav Bachorik
wrote:
>> Please, review this fix for a corner case handling of `jmethodID` values.
>>
>> The issue is related to the interplay between `jmethodID` values and method
>> redefinitions. Each `jmethodID` value is effectively a pointer to a
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 11:11:27 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
> Okay so why does this happen and is it a reasonable thing to be happening? On
> the surface it sounds wrong to deallocate anything associated with a live
> classloader.
If we didn't deallocate these old methods, there would be a memory
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:49:31 GMT, Jaroslav Bachorik
wrote:
>> Please, review this fix for a corner case handling of `jmethodID` values.
>>
>> The issue is related to the interplay between `jmethodID` values and method
>> redefinitions. Each `jmethodID` value is effectively a pointer to a
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 00:41:23 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
> From the blog:
>
> > Yes! The methods are being deallocated for a class loader that is still
> > alive.
>
> Okay so why does this happen and is it a reasonable thing to be happening? On
> the surface it sounds wrong to deallocate
On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 05:15:15 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> Jaroslav Bachorik has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Restrict cleanup to obsolete methods only
>
> I won't be able to review this this week, too snowed in atm. I can
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:49:31 GMT, Jaroslav Bachorik
wrote:
>> Please, review this fix for a corner case handling of `jmethodID` values.
>>
>> The issue is related to the interplay between `jmethodID` values and method
>> redefinitions. Each `jmethodID` value is effectively a pointer to a
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:49:31 GMT, Jaroslav Bachorik
wrote:
>> Please, review this fix for a corner case handling of `jmethodID` values.
>>
>> The issue is related to the interplay between `jmethodID` values and method
>> redefinitions. Each `jmethodID` value is effectively a pointer to a
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 06:06:48 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> Thanks everyone involved in reviewing this PR! You were awesome and helped
>> me drive the PR to better place than it started!
>
> @jbachorik this should not have been integrated yet! You only have one
> review not the required two for
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 17:27:30 GMT, Jaroslav Bachorik
wrote:
>> Jaroslav Bachorik has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Restrict cleanup to obsolete methods only
>
> Thanks everyone involved in reviewing this PR! You were
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:49:31 GMT, Jaroslav Bachorik
wrote:
>> Please, review this fix for a corner case handling of `jmethodID` values.
>>
>> The issue is related to the interplay between `jmethodID` values and method
>> redefinitions. Each `jmethodID` value is effectively a pointer to a
> Please, review this fix for a corner case handling of `jmethodID` values.
>
> The issue is related to the interplay between `jmethodID` values and method
> redefinitions. Each `jmethodID` value is effectively a pointer to a `Method`
> instance. Once that method gets redefined, the `jmethodID`
12 matches
Mail list logo
