On 8/12/19 8:12 PM, Mandy Chung wrote: > On 8/11/19 9:49 PM, David Holmes wrote: >> On 11/08/2019 2:50 pm, Mandy Chung wrote: >>> On 8/10/19 12:30 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: >>>> I wonder if bci=-1 is meaningful, and should be returned when BCI is not >>>> available. After this >>>> patch, it would be converted to 65536? >> >> This is my query as well. It is not obvious to me that the VM will never set >> a BCI of -1 > > Frederic adds an assert to ensure that bci is a valid value [1] in the fix > for JDK-8229375. This > would help catching the odd case with invalid BCI.
But the initializing value from Java code is still -1, so 65535 would be printed if BCI is not initialized by VM on some path? > Alternatively, we can make bci an int (as Alekey suggests) that does not > increase the object size: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk14/8193325/webrev.02/ @Stable seems meaningless here, for the reasons Daniel points out. I believe "final int bci" is just as good and clean. -- Thanks, -Aleksey
