On 7/15/13 11:59 PM, Rickard Bäckman wrote:
Vladimir,
I'll use the stack_base() method instead.
Good.
Thanks,
Vladimir
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
