Jeremy,
As I see it there was no consensus reached on whether this change should
be made. I have some reservations as previously outlined, but Alan
seemed to be of the view that the current situation was deliberately
chosen - which implied to me (Alan correct me if I'm wrong) that he
opposed the change.
It may be that including this case in the OOM onError handling is okay,
but that the JVMTI event posting is not. But Alan will need to clarify
his position on that.
David
Jeremy Manson said the following on 06/24/09 07:32:
So, it should have the JVMTI_RESOURCE_EXHAUSTED_OOM_ERROR but not the
JVMTI_RESOURCE_EXHAUSTED_JAVA_HEAP? I can change that.
Jeremy
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Alan Bateman<[email protected]> wrote:
Jeremy Manson wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:13 AM, Alan Bateman<[email protected]> wrote:
Hopefully this helps. I can review the patch but as I'm not working in
this
area on a daily basis, so it would be best to have a reviewer from the
hotspot team (and I assume you'll need someone to push this through
JPRT).
So, does anyone want to step up and review it? I know several of you
have already looked at it.
Jeremy
Is there is an updated webrev? In my last year I had hoped we wouldn't send
the JVM TI ResourceExhausted event because this isn't really a resource
exhaustion case.
-Alan.
