As far as Coleen and I are aware, this is internal-only. If anyone knows otherwise, please comment before the end of tomorrow.
Other than that, do you see any problems, Joe? On 01/24/13 15:41, Joe Darcy wrote: > If this function was only usable with the JDK implementation (an > internal JDK contract), then a ccc request is not needed. > > HTH, > > -Joe > > On 1/24/2013 12:26 PM, Eric McCorkle wrote: >> I think the question was more of "does one need to be filed?" >> >> On 01/24/13 15:15, Joe Darcy wrote: >>> There is as of yet no ccc request for 8006503. >>> >>> -Joe >>> >>> On 1/24/2013 12:11 PM, Eric McCorkle wrote: >>>> Joe, can you comment on this? >>>> >>>> On 01/24/13 14:59, Coleen Phillimore wrote: >>>>> What was the disposition of the CCC request? Was it decided not >>>>> to do >>>>> one because this function hasn't been used since before 1.4? >>>>> >>>>> Code looks good to me. I removed the one in hotspot last week. >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Coleen >>>>> >>>>> On 01/24/2013 10:59 AM, Eric McCorkle wrote: >>>>>> Hello, >>>>>> >>>>>> Please review this trivial patch which removes JVM_PrintStackTrace >>>>>> from >>>>>> jvm.h. It is no longer being used. >>>>>> >>>>>> The webrev is here: >>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~emc/8006503/webrev.00/ >>>>>> >>>>>> The bug is here: >>>>>> http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=8006503 >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Eric >
