On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 20:07:25 GMT, Per Liden wrote:
>> JDK-8237354 introduced the concept of "foreground work" in WorkGang, as a
>> special case for use by the HeapDumper. I propose that we remove this code,
>> since this special use case can be solved without the need for the concept
>> of "for
On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 07:52:32 GMT, Ralf Schmelter wrote:
> The reason I've added this was, that for the shenandoah GC the heap iteration
> would run into assertions if not called from the VM thread. Maybe this has
> changed in the meantime.
As mentioned in my previous comment. This PR removes t
On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 20:07:25 GMT, Per Liden wrote:
>> JDK-8237354 introduced the concept of "foreground work" in WorkGang, as a
>> special case for use by the HeapDumper. I propose that we remove this code,
>> since this special use case can be solved without the need for the concept
>> of "for
On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 09:56:21 GMT, Per Liden wrote:
> JDK-8237354 introduced the concept of "foreground work" in WorkGang, as a
> special case for use by the HeapDumper. I propose that we remove this code,
> since this special use case can be solved without the need for the concept of
> "foregro
On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 03:03:01 GMT, Lin Zang wrote:
> Seems the #5410 has made some change that will affect this one. I am
> wondering should I start to rebase this PR based on that ?
It looks like at most there would be one conflict, and it is trivial. You'll
eventually have to merge before int
