Re: RFR(XS): 8198585: add asserts to verify that ServiceUtil::visible_oop is not needed
Ok. I'll make that change. thanks, Chris On 2/23/18 6:45 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote: Instead of "assert(false, ...", I recommend "fatal(...". This will cause a failure in all build configs including 'release' bits. Dan On 2/22/18 8:16 PM, Chris Plummer wrote: Hello, Please review the following: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8198585 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cjplummer/8198585/webrev.00/webrev/ Before removing ServiceUtil::visible_oop(), I want to make sure it really isn't needed. Supposedly it should never return false, thus negating the need for its existence. This change adds asserts whenever false is returned. If it makes it all the way through promotion testing, then I'll delete the ServiceUtil::visible_oop() code and the references to it. I tested by running all jdk and hotspot tier1-3 tests. thanks, Chris
Re: RFR(XS): 8198585: add asserts to verify that ServiceUtil::visible_oop is not needed
Instead of "assert(false, ...", I recommend "fatal(...". This will cause a failure in all build configs including 'release' bits. Dan On 2/22/18 8:16 PM, Chris Plummer wrote: Hello, Please review the following: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8198585 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cjplummer/8198585/webrev.00/webrev/ Before removing ServiceUtil::visible_oop(), I want to make sure it really isn't needed. Supposedly it should never return false, thus negating the need for its existence. This change adds asserts whenever false is returned. If it makes it all the way through promotion testing, then I'll delete the ServiceUtil::visible_oop() code and the references to it. I tested by running all jdk and hotspot tier1-3 tests. thanks, Chris
Re: RFR(XS): 8198585: add asserts to verify that ServiceUtil::visible_oop is not needed
Hi Chris, +1 Thanks, Serguei On 2/23/18 01:58, Stefan Karlsson wrote: Looks good. StefanK On 2018-02-23 02:16, Chris Plummer wrote: Hello, Please review the following: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8198585 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cjplummer/8198585/webrev.00/webrev/ Before removing ServiceUtil::visible_oop(), I want to make sure it really isn't needed. Supposedly it should never return false, thus negating the need for its existence. This change adds asserts whenever false is returned. If it makes it all the way through promotion testing, then I'll delete the ServiceUtil::visible_oop() code and the references to it. I tested by running all jdk and hotspot tier1-3 tests. thanks, Chris
Re: RFR(XS): 8198585: add asserts to verify that ServiceUtil::visible_oop is not needed
Looks good. StefanK On 2018-02-23 02:16, Chris Plummer wrote: Hello, Please review the following: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8198585 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cjplummer/8198585/webrev.00/webrev/ Before removing ServiceUtil::visible_oop(), I want to make sure it really isn't needed. Supposedly it should never return false, thus negating the need for its existence. This change adds asserts whenever false is returned. If it makes it all the way through promotion testing, then I'll delete the ServiceUtil::visible_oop() code and the references to it. I tested by running all jdk and hotspot tier1-3 tests. thanks, Chris