Looks good.
dl
On 9/25/19 6:29 PM, coleen.phillim...@oracle.com wrote:
On 9/25/19 9:21 PM, coleen.phillim...@oracle.com wrote:
I see. I dumped the redefinition count in the replay data because I
saw the other fields were dumped there. Would they also not affect
the generated code?
I c
On 9/25/19 6:21 PM, coleen.phillim...@oracle.com wrote:
I see. I dumped the redefinition count in the replay data because I
saw the other fields were dumped there. Would they also not affect
the generated code?
I know some like _jvmti_can_access_local_variables can affect the
generated
On 9/25/19 9:21 PM, coleen.phillim...@oracle.com wrote:
I see. I dumped the redefinition count in the replay data because I
saw the other fields were dumped there. Would they also not affect
the generated code?
I can remove these changes.
open webrev at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~col
Thanks Serguei!
Coleen
On 9/25/19 5:56 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Coleen,
This looks fine to me.
Nice unification for all platforms.
Thank you for taking care about this issue!
Thanks,
Serguei
On 9/25/19 2:28 PM, coleen.phillim...@oracle.com wrote:
Adding serviceability-dev.
Thanks Serguei! I removed the replay code.
Coleen
On 9/25/19 8:54 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Coleen,
It looks pretty good to me.
I'm not aware much about reply.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 9/25/19 2:29 PM, coleen.phillim...@oracle.com wrote:
Adding serviceability-dev.
Coleen
On 9/2
I see. I dumped the redefinition count in the replay data because I saw
the other fields were dumped there. Would they also not affect the
generated code?
I can remove these changes.
Thanks,
Coleen
On 9/25/19 6:18 PM, dean.l...@oracle.com wrote:
Saving and restoring redefinition_count fo
Hi Coleen,
It looks pretty good to me.
I'm not aware much about reply.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 9/25/19 2:29 PM, coleen.phillim...@oracle.com wrote:
Adding serviceability-dev.
Coleen
On 9/25/19 10:33 AM, coleen.phillim...@oracle.com wrote:
Summary: Dont create nmethod if classes have been redefine
Saving and restoring redefinition_count for compiler replay doesn't make
sense to me. It won't affect the generated code, and we probably
shouldn't even be installing/registering replay nmethods. I would remove
the ciEnv::dump_replay_data_unsafe() and process_JvmtiExport() changes.
dl
On 9/2
Hi Coleen,
This looks fine to me.
Nice unification for all platforms.
Thank you for taking care about this issue!
Thanks,
Serguei
On 9/25/19 2:28 PM, coleen.phillim...@oracle.com wrote:
Adding serviceability-dev.
Coleen
On 9/25/19 5:22 PM, coleen.phillim...@oracle.com wrote:
Summary: allow o
Adding serviceability-dev.
Coleen
On 9/25/19 10:33 AM, coleen.phillim...@oracle.com wrote:
Summary: Dont create nmethod if classes have been redefined since
compilation start.
The bug was caused by a new nmethod created with an old Method in the
metadata section. Added verification (which hi
Adding serviceability-dev.
Coleen
On 9/25/19 5:22 PM, coleen.phillim...@oracle.com wrote:
Summary: allow old methods in
CompiledStaticDirectCall::set_to_interpreted
This is the comment in the bug that describes this race and this fix:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8225681?focusedCom
Excellent!
David and Mandy have formally approved, so I'll push the current version of the
patch.
Paul
On 9/25/19, 11:39 AM, "Mandy Chung" wrote:
One point to note is that JVM TI, JDI and JDWP are supported interfaces.
jmm.h (and jvm.h and possibly others) are private interface
One point to note is that JVM TI, JDI and JDWP are supported interfaces.
jmm.h (and jvm.h and possibly others) are private interface between VM
and libraries and it has the freedom to make any change (even dropping
JMM_VERSION - this can be done in the future).
For this patch to move forward,
Thank you, David, Daniel, Serguei, and Robbin, for reviewing this change!
Best regards,
Daniil
On 9/24/19, 11:45 PM, "Robbin Ehn" wrote:
Hi Daniil,
Looks good, thanks!
/Robbin
On 9/25/19 12:45 AM, David Holmes wrote:
> Looks good to me.
>
> Thanks,
In the interest of getting this patch pushed, can I get confirmation to leave
it as is with JMM_VERSION_3 = 0x2003000? It's not used anywhere yet.
Imo best to file a new issue to change to the new scheme, which would redefine
JMM_VERSION_3 = JMM_VERSION_14 = 0x200E. JMM_VERSION_2 would get c
Hi
Dan and Richard,
The JVMTI and JDI tests are:
vmTestbase_nsk_jvmti, vmTestbase_nsk_jdi and jdk_jdi
The tests locations are:
open/test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/jvmti
open/test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/jdi
I had very good discussion yesterday with Serguei Spitsyn from serviceability.
He said that we may not need one solution. Both cases, monitoring and debugging, are important and
we can use different solutions for them.
As Andrew said, for monitoring you want to observe the same behavior as in p
Hi Michael,
Returning question: I understand that the method findLoadedClass is
protected. But say it was public, how would you find out loaded classes on
the bootstrap classloader? Since from instrumentation perspective when a
loader is null its the bootstrap classloader.
Thanks
./Sam
On Fri,
cool thanks
Thanks
./Sam
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 5:05 AM Michael Rasmussen <
michael.rasmus...@roguewave.com> wrote:
> On 9/18/19 2:47 PM, Sam Thomas wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm trying to understand if a class will load as soon as all the
> transformers return. The aim is to get a class referenc
Based on the review thread, it looks like Richard has run Tier1 tests on
this change. I don't think there are any JVM/TI tests in Tier1. I'm not
sure how much compiler testing is done in Tier1, but I do know that the
compiler stress testing doesn't kick in until the later tiers (Tier5 or
Tier6)...
On 25/09/2019 13:31, Reingruber, Richard wrote:
> > The terminology clarification is simply that - a clarification so that
> > when the spec says "heap" it means "Java heap", when it says "Thread" it
> > means "Java thread" etc without having to spell it out each time. I do
> > not read
Hello Vladimir,
thanks for looking at this.
> can_tag_objects is "always" capability.
That's correct.
> If it is true then EA will be disabled in all cases when JVMTI agent is
used. It is too broad.
>
> Am I missing something?
No that's correct too. If you include jvmti as hotspot fea
> >> Not a yes/no question IMO. I certainly don't subscribe to your view
that
> >> JVM TI must always expose the "abstract virtual machine" regardless
of
> >> what may have been done in the real VM.
> >
> > That's what what the documentation says. Everything refers to the J
On 25/09/2019 7:46 pm, Reingruber, Richard wrote:
Hi David,
thanks for taking part in the discussion.
> Hi Richard,
>
> Thanks for continuing the discussion. Some responses below.
>
> On 25/09/2019 7:28 am, Reingruber, Richard wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to get c
Thank you Vladimir and also David and Serguei for your Reviews.
> May be add comment that it is onload capability and can't be changed during
execution.
Done.
I'll be out-of-office next week. Will push when coming back.
Thanks, Richard.
-Original Message-
From: Vladimir Kozlov
Sen
Hi David,
thanks for taking part in the discussion.
> Hi Richard,
>
> Thanks for continuing the discussion. Some responses below.
>
> On 25/09/2019 7:28 am, Reingruber, Richard wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to get comments on the following questions:
> >
> >1. Sh
26 matches
Mail list logo
