On 6/28/16 19:30, David Holmes wrote:
On 29/06/2016 12:09 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On 6/28/16 18:44, David Holmes wrote:
On 29/06/2016 7:09 AM, [email protected] wrote:
On 6/28/16 14:02, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
On 6/28/16 2:11 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On 6/28/16 11:19, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
I'll have to check the upper layers of this API, but if an
agent can pass a bad 'class_loader' parameter and get this
assert() to fire, then that's not good. Hopefully a bad
'class_loader' parameter is caught at a higher layer.
Not sure, what do you mean.
Do you mean the generated JVMTI upper layer or the
JvmtiEnv::GetNamedModule?
Probably, the generated code.
I did mean the generated layer.
Ok, thanks.
Update: Yes, passing a non-NULL jobject as the class_loader
parameter
when the jobject does not refer to a "class loader" is
caught
at the upper layer.
The upper layer does not check that it is a class loader, just for
non-NULL.
I think, it is good to have an assert here to double-checks the
pre-conditions as other caller can be added later.
But I'm Ok to get rid of it if you suggest.
Please keep the asserts. Basically I was mumbling to myself to
make sure that the asserts could not be reached by user code
and the "Update:" was to indicate that I did do.
Ok, thanks.
src/share/vm/prims/jvmti.xml
L6550: <param id="module_ptr">
L6551: <outptr><jobject/></outptr>
L6552: <description>
L6553: On return, points to a
<code>java.lang.reflect.Module</code> object.
L6554: </description>
L6555: </param>
The above wording doesn't allow for module_ptr to be NULL
which
is a mismatch with the description.
I disagree (or maybe I got it incorrectly).
Pointing to NULL and be NULL is different.
It is not allowed for the module_ptr to be NULL but Ok to pint to
NULL on return.
I think the description needs to be:
On return, points to a <code>java.lang.reflect.Module</code>
object
or points to a <code>NULL</code>.
Agreed, fixed.
Disagree. You would say that a pointer is NULL, not that it points to
a NULL.
Why are you disagree?
The module_ptr is an out argument, it is not allowed to be NULL.
But the returning value by this pointer can be NULL.
As per later email I see this terminology already exists so is fine,
but I find it confusing to say "points to a NULL" - a NULL is not an
entity. If "foo points to a NULL" that implies to me "foo == &NULL;"
which is nonsense - foo == NULL, and if foo==NULL then foo points to
nothing. But the "pointer to a pointer" aspect here does confuse things.
Agreed.
It is a little bit confusing but users seems to be Ok with it.
So that there is no motivation to improve it as it would touch many
fragments.
Thanks,
Serguei
Thanks,
David
Thanks,
Serguei
David
Thanks,
Serguei
Dan
