Hi Thomas, do you know some fast and helpful person who can bring the INCLUDE_JFR and ! INCLUDE_JFR cases in sync ? (or maybe there was a reason to have these differences we observe ? )
Best regards, Matthias > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Schatzl <thomas.scha...@oracle.com> > Sent: Donnerstag, 27. September 2018 16:32 > To: Baesken, Matthias <matthias.baes...@sap.com>; 'hotspot- > d...@openjdk.java.net' <hotspot-...@openjdk.java.net>; 'build- > d...@openjdk.java.net' <build-dev@openjdk.java.net> > Subject: Re: RFR : 8211213: fix aix build after 8196341: Add JFR events for > parallel phases of G1 > > Hi, > > On Thu, 2018-09-27 at 14:16 +0000, Baesken, Matthias wrote: > > Small update - while my change fixes the build issues on > > AIX (and maybe also the issues on zero) , > > My comment that the AIX compiler xlc12 is guilty was most likely > > wrong . > > > > What happens, is that INCLUDE_JFR is not set on AIX (means : > > jfr is disabled on this platform). > > However , in the generated file jfrEventClasses.hpp , > > We have different classes for the > > cases INCLUDE_JFR and not INCLUDE_JFR . > > > > The not INCLUDE_JFR - versions of the classes only have the > > commit() method without params , and the set*-methods : > > > > [...] > > > > * Should the generator be changed to generate the missing > > methods in both cases ? > > * Or should in non-JFR case the complete event coding be > > removed/guarded by macros ? > > I would prefer the former as the latter just adds more clutter, i.e. > ifdefs. > > Thanks, > Thomas
