Vladimir, I'll use the stack_base() method instead. Thanks /R
On Jul 16, 2013, at 8:56 AM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote: > Rickard, > > One thing is_in_stack() has is check _stack_base == NULL. In your case it may > not happen then you need to add assert to make sure it really does not > happen. Or use stack_base() method which has the assert. > > Thanks, > Vladimir > > On 7/15/13 10:11 PM, Rickard Bäckman wrote: >> Vladimir & John, >> >> thanks for the suggestion. It makes sense. >> Updated webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rbackman/8016131.u2/ >> >> Thanks >> /R >> >> On Jul 16, 2013, at 4:26 AM, John Rose wrote: >> >>> On Jul 15, 2013, at 9:59 AM, Vladimir Kozlov <vladimir.koz...@oracle.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> There are several methods already in Thread class which do similar address >>>> cheacks: on_local_stackO, is_in_stack(). It would be nice to have new >>>> check (at least part of it) at the same place. >>> >>> Yes, that's a good idea! Thread::is_in_usable_stack. That way the >>> computation that involves stack_guard_size, etc., goes in thread.cpp which >>> is more logical than in frame.cpp. >>> >>> — John >>
