Looks good!
/R
On May 8, 2013, at 10:58 AM, Staffan Larsen wrote:
>
> On 8 maj 2013, at 10:46, David Holmes wrote:
>
>> Looks good to me Staffan!
>
> Thanks.
>
>> (Those methods should have been called getXXXCount not Counter though :( )
>
> We can fix that at the same time:
> http://cr.o
On 8 maj 2013, at 10:46, David Holmes wrote:
> Looks good to me Staffan!
Thanks.
> (Those methods should have been called getXXXCount not Counter though :( )
We can fix that at the same time:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sla/8013591/webrev.01/
/Staffan
>
> David
>
> On 8/05/2013 6:17 PM,
Looks good to me Staffan!
(Those methods should have been called getXXXCount not Counter though :( )
David
On 8/05/2013 6:17 PM, Staffan Larsen wrote:
When JDK-8010862 (Method counter fields used for profiling can be allocated
lazily) was fixed, SA was not updated to reflect this change.
The
When JDK-8010862 (Method counter fields used for profiling can be allocated
lazily) was fixed, SA was not updated to reflect this change.
The problem is with Method.getInvocationCounter() and
Method.getBackedgeCounter() which do not handle the case where MethodCounters
are not allocated.
The
