On 3/5/2013 3:23 PM, David Holmes wrote:
On 6/03/2013 9:08 AM, Dean Long wrote:
What if allocate_init_map() fails to allocate memory? Shouldn't
add_class_share_map_info() follow the pattern of add_map_info():
return NULL or "map", and have the caller check for NULL?
AFAICS apart from one seeming bug, if we can't allocate a new map it
does no harm in terms of the code that looks at the map. The bug is:
177 mp = ph->core->class_share_maps;
178 if (mp) {
179 print_debug("can't locate map_info at 0x%lx, trying class
share maps\n",
180 addr);
where I think 178 should be "if (mp==NULL)". Everything else will just
do nothing upon encountering a NULL map.
The fix addresses the parfait warning and leaves the code functionally
unchanged. So any robustness issues would need to be done via a follow
up RFE.
Why not just add "return map" at the end of the function? It seems
closer to the intent of the original code, assuming it
addresses the parfait warning.
dl
David
dl
On 3/4/2013 11:39 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Looks fine to me - thanks Staffan!
David
On 5/03/2013 5:24 PM, Staffan Larsen wrote:
A very small fix for a warning.
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sla/8009287/webrev.00/
Thanks,
/Staffan
