Re: Request for Approval: 4858370: JDWP: Memory Leak: GlobalRefs never deleted when processing invokeMethod command

2016-04-11 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Wed, 2016-04-06 at 13:33 -0400, Andrew Hughes wrote: > > - Original Message - > > > > On Mon, 2016-04-04 at 13:41 -0400, Andrew Hughes wrote: > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Please approve and sponsor the following backpor

Re: Request for Approval: 4858370: JDWP: Memory Leak: GlobalRefs never deleted when processing invokeMethod command

2016-04-11 Thread Andrew Hughes
- Original Message - > On Wed, 2016-04-06 at 13:33 -0400, Andrew Hughes wrote: > > > > - Original Message - > > > > > > On Mon, 2016-04-04 at 13:41 -0400, Andrew Hughes wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > >

Re: Request for Approval: 4858370: JDWP: Memory Leak: GlobalRefs never deleted when processing invokeMethod command

2016-04-11 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Mon, 2016-04-11 at 09:40 -0400, Andrew Hughes wrote: > - Original Message - > > > > On Wed, 2016-04-06 at 13:33 -0400, Andrew Hughes wrote: > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2016-04-04 at 13:41 -0400, Andrew Hughes wrote: > > > > > > > >

hg: jdk7u/jdk7u/jdk: 8153673: [BACKOUT] JDWP: Memory Leak: GlobalRefs never deleted when processing invokeMethod command

2016-04-11 Thread gnu . andrew
Changeset: ce1e160a991d Author:sgehwolf Date: 2016-04-11 15:03 +0100 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7u/jdk7u/jdk/rev/ce1e160a991d 8153673: [BACKOUT] JDWP: Memory Leak: GlobalRefs never deleted when processing invokeMethod command Summary: Backed out changeset a47eba38b96e Revie

Re: Request for Approval: 4858370: JDWP: Memory Leak: GlobalRefs never deleted when processing invokeMethod command

2016-04-11 Thread Andrew Hughes
> > > > Done: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7u/jdk7u/jdk/rev/a47eba38b96e > > > This fix has been backed out in 9[1] and is in progress of being backed > > > out in 8[2] due to test regressions. I think we should do the same in > > > 7. Thoughts? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Severin > > > > > > [1]