I choose to follow the same pattern as for other flags, although I agree that 
the extra accessor isn't really needed.

Thanks David!

/Staffan

On 18 feb 2013, at 05:23, David Holmes <[email protected]> wrote:

> Thanks for clarifying this Staffan, I see now how this was setup wrong in the 
> first place. You are using the right mechanism now.
> 
> I'm not sure UseTLAB warrants its own accessor in VM anymore as the two uses 
> of it can simply ask for the flag value directly. Your call.
> 
> Thanks,
> David
> 
> On 12/02/2013 8:19 PM, Staffan Larsen wrote:
>> The values are initialized at VM compile time in the 
>> VMStructs::localHotSpotVMIntConstants array. I don't think we want to modify 
>> SA so that values of int constants is made into a dynamic lookup. Or at 
>> least, that is a fairly significant change to SA. The problem here was to 
>> think that UseTLAB is a constant when it isn't.
>> 
>> Yes, I thought about a regression test for this, but the valuable test would 
>> be to verify that no command line flag values are read as constants, and I 
>> don't see how I could write that.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> /Staffan
>> 
>> On 12 feb 2013, at 01:20, David Holmes <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 10/02/2013 5:06 AM, Staffan Larsen wrote:
>>>> Please review this small patch to avoid reading flag values in SA as 
>>>> constants. Reading them as constants  means SA will only see the default 
>>>> value for these flags. Instead the infrastructure in SA to read command 
>>>> line flags should be used. In addition the value if EnableInvokeDynamic is 
>>>> never used, so I removed that from SA.
>>> 
>>> Isn't the real problem in the way db is initialized with the values for 
>>> these flags? ie shouldn't db.lookupIntConstant("UseTLAB").intValue() be 
>>> returning the actual value of UseTLAB as it occurs in the VM ?
>>> 
>>> Also we need a regression test for this as obviously it ain't being tested! 
>>> :(
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> David
>>> 
>>>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sla/8007901/webrev.00/
>>>> bug: http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=8007901 (not yet visible)
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> /Staffan
>>>> 
>> 

Reply via email to