Thanks for the comment. I dug up a slightly dated (refers to SCCS )
coding convention document that recommends not to put bug IDs in the
comments. I'll delete it.
thanks,
bill
On 1/12/2012 3:34 PM, yumin...@oracle.com wrote:
Looks OK. One comment, should we include the CR in comment? I
rem
Hi David,
Thanks for forwarding this to the SA list. I did run the nsk/jvmti
tests from the UTE area on sqenfs-1.us.oracle.com. There were no new
failures with this change.
bill
On 1/12/2012 2:54 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Bill,
I believe this should have gone out to the Serviceability
Looks OK. One comment, should we include the CR in comment? I
remember it should not be there.
--Yumin
On 1/12/2012 12:24 PM, Bill Pittore wrote:
Hi David,
Thanks for forwarding this to the SA list. I did run the nsk/jvmti
tests from the UTE area on sqenfs-1.us.oracle.com. There were no ne
On 13/01/2012 7:39 AM, Bill Pittore wrote:
Thanks for the comment. I dug up a slightly dated (refers to SCCS )
coding convention document that recommends not to put bug IDs in the
comments. I'll delete it.
There are numerous places in the hotspot code where comments refer to a
specific CR so I
Hi Bill,
I believe this should have gone out to the Serviceability list (cc'ed)
instead of, or perhaps as well as, the runtime list.
The change looks okay to me in that is does what you described it would.
With JVMTI the proof-of-the-pudding is always in the testing and I
assume the various
