Looks good. On Dec 9, 2013, at 1:05 PM, Roland Westrelin <roland.westre...@oracle.com> wrote:
> > Hi Vladimir, > > Thanks for reviewing this change. > >> CC to serviceability group. >> >> I am for "always call notice_modification() in parse_stream()”. > > This then: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~roland/8029383/webrev.01/ > > Roland. > >> >> The method SystemDictionary::number_of_modifications() is used only by >> ciEnv::system_dictionary_modification_counter_changed() which checks only >> not equal state. So the value is not important, only difference. >> >> Add new comment to separate from existing one. Otherwise it looks strange: >> // But, do not add to system dictionary. >> + if (notice) { >> + notice_modification(); >> >> Thanks, >> Vladimir >> >> On 12/9/13 9:03 AM, Roland Westrelin wrote: >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~roland/8029383/webrev.00/ >>> >>> When an anonymous class is defined through Unsafe (not recorded in the >>> system dictionary), SystemDictionary::notice_modification() is not called >>> and failed dependencies can be missed when class loading happens >>> concurrently with a compilation (for this test case, a new implementor for >>> an interface). >>> >>> There are 2 calls to SystemDictionary::parse_stream(). One is from jvmti >>> and as I understand the call to SystemDictionary::notice_modification() >>> once all new class definitions are done which is fine because this happens >>> at a safepoint. The other call is when the class is defined through Unsafe. >>> I added a call to SystemDictionary::notice_modification() in that case and >>> it must happen with the CompileLock held. Maybe, we could as well always >>> call notice_modification() in parse_stream() and remove the call from the >>> jvmti code. >>> >>> Roland. >>> >
