Re: RFR(S):8251374:jmap -dump should not accept invalid options(Internet mail)

So am I right in thinking that what you did was forge a Merge changeset that actually did a backout, and then recreated the changeset correctly and pushed under the same bug number? I don't think that is a process we want to endorse. A "Merge" changeset should be exactly that. Also the bug n

Re: RFR: 8251835: 8251374 breaks jmap -dump:all(Internet mail)

Dear All, Sorry for making incomplete patch. And thanks for help fixing it. BRs, Lin > On Aug 15, 2020, at 6:04 AM, "serguei.spit...@oracle.com" > wrote: > > Hi Stefan and Paul, > > Thank you for taking care and fixing this regression! > > It seems, the fix from Paul is more comple

Re: RFR: 8251835: 8251374 breaks jmap -dump:all

Hi Stefan and Paul, Thank you for taking care and fixing this regression! It seems, the fix from Paul is more complete and is better to push after testing. It looks good to me. Unfortunately, there is very limited test coverage for this. Thanks, Serguei On 8/14/20 09:47, Stefan Karlsson wr

Re: RFR: 8251835: 8251374 breaks jmap -dump:all

On 2020-08-14 18:39, Hohensee, Paul wrote: Makes sense to me to do a followup. I've filed https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8251848. Great. I ran TEST="test/jdk/sun/tools/jmap/BasicJMapTest.java" JTREG="JAVA_OPTIONS=-XX:+UseParallelGC -XX:ParallelGCThreads=100" successfully, includi

RE: RFR: 8251835: 8251374 breaks jmap -dump:all

Makes sense to me to do a followup. I've filed https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8251848. I ran TEST="test/jdk/sun/tools/jmap/BasicJMapTest.java" JTREG="JAVA_OPTIONS=-XX:+UseParallelGC -XX:ParallelGCThreads=100" successfully, including your patch for 8251570. This 8251835 patch looks go

RFR: 8251835: 8251374 breaks jmap -dump:all

Hi all, Please review this patch to fix a recently introduced jmap bug. https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stefank/8251835/webrev.01/ https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8251835 I added the same kind of checks that we have in histo. Testing: - Tested locally with the failing test - Tier1-tier5

RE: RFR(S) 8249293: Unsafe stackwalk in VM_GetOrSetLocal::doit_prologue()

Hi Serguei, thanks for the feedback. I have implemented your suggestions and created a new webrev: Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rrich/webrevs/8249293/webrev.4/ Delta: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rrich/webrevs/8249293/webrev.4.inc/ Please find my replies to your comments below. Best rega

Re: RFR(S) 8249293: Unsafe stackwalk in VM_GetOrSetLocal::doit_prologue()

Hi Richard, http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rrich/webrevs/8249293/webrev.3.inc/test/hotspot/jtreg/serviceability/jvmti/GetLocalVariable/GetLocalWithoutSuspendTest.java.frames.html 33 * the stack walk. The target thread's stack is walkable while in native. After send