Martin, I take your point about the other allocations, but as you say OOM is better than SEGV. So possibly good enough?
If NEW returns NULL, then there will be a pending OOM on the stack. -Chris On 20 Mar 2013, at 23:12, Martin Buchholz <marti...@google.com> wrote: > Hi John, > > I wrote this code originally IIRC. You are correct that the existing code > does not check these allocations for failure. In practice, it will be very > rare for the failure to be seen, since the allocations are likely to be > small and only occur during program startup. > > I commend you for trying to get this right, but if you want to get there, I > think you need to throw OOME and undo all of the existing allocations. You > can do that by keeping track of how many elements you already allocated, > freeing them, and throwing OOME. As Alan points out, the exception in the > static initializer shows that recovery is even more problematic than with a > regular OOME. Nevertheless, throwing OOME is going to be a better result > for the user than uninformative SEGV. > > Martin > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 8:22 AM, John Zavgren <john.zavg...@oracle.com>wrote: > >> Greetings: >> >> Please consider the following fix for a minor memory issue that I found in >> the file: src/solaris/native/java/lang/UNIXProcess_md.c. >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jzavgren/8008118/webrev.01/ >> >> Thanks! >> John Zavgren >>
