On 8/12/19 5:13 PM, Frederic Parain wrote:
This looks good to me, with two comments:
I don’t like the static final RETAIN_CLASS_REF for the same
reasons as Aleksey, but I can live with that.
I didn't see Aleksey's comment about RETAIN_CLASS_REF (what is it?).
Now that it draws my attention. Since there is no other flag at the
moment, we can simplify it and rename the flags field to a boolean
retainClassRef field.
The protocol between the JVM and the Java class is well explained
on the JVM side (javaClasses.cpp:4227). I think it would be valuable
to provide the same description on the Java side, the comment in
StackFrameInfo.java:42 describes only part of the protocol.
Good suggestion. Added:
96 // VM adds 1 to the code index to StackFrameInfo::bci field such that
97 // zero (and negative values) indicates invalid BCI. So substract 1.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk14/8193325/webrev.04/
Mandy
No need for another review from me.
Regards,
Fred
On Aug 12, 2019, at 16:24, Mandy Chung <mandy.ch...@oracle.com> wrote:
Having a second thought, I'm keeping @Stable bci field while zero indicates an
invalid BCI that makes it obvious that this field will be updated. VM will set
StackFrameInfo::bci to value+1.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk14/8193325/webrev.03/
Mandy
