Hi Joe,
I think this patch and its revised output looks OK and agree about not adding a
test for it.
Brian
> On Jun 28, 2019, at 4:42 PM, Joe Darcy <joe.da...@oracle.com> wrote:
> […]
>
> and the revised code prints this more helpfully as
>
> java.lang.Exception: first
> at DejaVuStackTrace.main(DejaVuStackTrace.java:3)
> Suppressed: java.lang.Exception: second
> at DejaVuStackTrace.main(DejaVuStackTrace.java:4)
> Suppressed: java.lang.Exception: third
> at DejaVuStackTrace.main(DejaVuStackTrace.java:6)
> Suppressed: java.lang.Exception: fourth
> at DejaVuStackTrace.main(DejaVuStackTrace.java:8)
> Suppressed: [CIRCULAR REFERENCE: java.lang.Exception: first]
> Suppressed: java.lang.Exception: fifth
> at DejaVuStackTrace.main(DejaVuStackTrace.java:14)
> Caused by: [CIRCULAR REFERENCE: java.lang.Exception: second]
>
> The format of the printed stack trace is not specified and I don't think it
> is worthwhile to write a regression test for this change.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Joe
>
> diff -r c9093341cfe2 src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Throwable.java
> --- a/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Throwable.java Fri Jun 28
> 13:02:18 2019 -0700
> +++ b/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Throwable.java Fri Jun 28
> 16:34:15 2019 -0700
> @@ -693,7 +693,7 @@
> Set<Throwable> dejaVu) {
> assert Thread.holdsLock(s.lock());
> if (dejaVu.contains(this)) {
> - s.println("\t[CIRCULAR REFERENCE:" + this + "]");
> + s.println(prefix + caption + "[CIRCULAR REFERENCE: " + this +
> "]");
> } else {
> dejaVu.add(this);
> // Compute number of frames in common between this and enclosing
> trace
>
