Hi Jc,
Thank you for the update!
It looks good.
It is great that testing on your side is Okay.
I'll submit a mach5 job soon (today or tomorrow).
Thanks,
Serguei
On 11/6/18 20:03, JC Beyler wrote:
Hi Jc,
Thank you a lot for the code review!
On 11/6/18 9:22 AM, JC Beyler wrote:
Hi Serguei,
I saw this code:
+ BasicType next_slot_type = locals->at(_index + 1)->type();
I think we are not worried about going out of bounds due to the work
done in the check_slot_type, which is done in doi
Hi Jc,
Not sure, I understand a motivation for this change:
- if (JvmtiExport::should_post_sampled_object_alloc()) {
+ {
Also, I'm not sure this is still needed:
+#include "prims/jvmtiEventController.inline.hpp"
+#include "prims/jvmtiThreadState.inline.hpp"
I expected you'd just revert all th
Hi Jc,
On 11/6/18 1:10 PM, JC Beyler wrote:
Hi Serguei,
Thanks for looking at it. You are right that there are various ways of
doing this:
A) Continue removing the assignments via
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8210687
- This requires a few more webrevs but as you've said, we
Hi Serguei,
Thanks for looking at it. You are right that there are various ways of
doing this:
A) Continue removing the assignments via
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8210687
- This requires a few more webrevs but as you've said, we will miss the
extra tracing
B) Start extending th
Okay.
I'm not sure I fully understandd what is current plan.
My view is that we can do the following steps:
1) Jc can push what was already reviewed.
With this change we will miss extra tracing for JNI calls and results.
2) Work on using the ExceptionCheckingJni that will restore
this t
On 11/6/18 11:14 AM, Chris Plummer wrote:
Hi JC,
The exception changes looked ok to me, but it would be good to get a
second approval before moving forward with them since they are pretty
significant.
The exception changes need to be discussed after a separate RFR is posted.
Thanks,
Sergu
Hi JC,
The exception changes looked ok to me, but it would be good to get
a second approval before moving forward with them since they are
pretty significant.
thanks,
Chris
On 11/2/18 9:09 PM, JC Beyler wrote:
Hi Jini,
I would counter your macos footprint argument by saying that macos
already has huge core files, so the % increase caused by your change is
small, whereas your indication is that on linux (a platform we tend to
care about debugging on much more) it is doubling the core file size.
tha
Gentle reminder.
Thanks!
Jini.
On 10/29/2018 11:32 AM, Jini George wrote:
Thank you very much, Ioi, for looking into this, and the clarification
offline. My bad, I had missed the earlier mail from you. :-( My
responses below.
Yes, I had tested this on MacOS. The issue does not exist on MacOS
10 matches
Mail list logo
