On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 20:34:31 GMT, Eirik Bjørsnøs <eir...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Either way is fine. I think we probably need to review the majority of uses >> of VM.savedPropoerty as they mostly relate to SM boot circularity. So we >> will change this one either now or later. > > I would prefer if we could deal with getSavedProperty as a wider area follow > up, since that would creep out of scope for this particular PR. > > Ok with you, @liach ? > > Perhaps @seanjmullan has input on how to deal with VM.getSavedProperty across > the code base? I prefer to minimize code changes for these cleanup issues. We should file a separate issue, "Examine usages of VM.getSavedProperty after JEP 486" or something like that. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22141#discussion_r1844480355
