On 11/28/17 5:23 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
Hi Chris,
I understood the reason for getting rid of the case statements. I was just
wondering if you weighed this code disruption vs. the value of what you are
fixing.
Jini has pointed it as below and I agree with him:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/2017-October/021965.html
-------------
One point I want to make is that we have the
enum BasicTypeSize redefined in SA as public static final values, and
this makes it error prone when existing enum values change, just as in
this case. An ideal solution would be to include this in vmStructs.cpp
as a declare_constant() macro, and read this in SA with the
db.lookupIntConstant() method.
-------------
Hi Yasumasa,
Yes, I had read that and understand the point being made. What I'm
asking is now that you've implemented it and seen the disruption to the
switch statements (which I assume you and Jini were not aware of before
embarking on this), is it still worth doing? It's not really that big of
a deal to me. I just want to make sure it's been taken into consideration.
thanks,
Chris
Thanks,
Yasumasa
2017-11-29 10:09 GMT+09:00 Chris Plummer <chris.plum...@oracle.com>:
On 11/28/17 4:51 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
Hi Chris,
2017-11-29 5:32 GMT+09:00 Chris Plummer <chris.plum...@oracle.com>:
Hi Yasumasa,
This isn't code I know very well, and I'm not a Reviewer. Just a couple
of
observations.
I wonder if the person who originally suggested this change realized the
disruption it would have to existing switch statements. I'm not saying
the
change shouldn't be done for this reason, but it is something to at least
consider.
According to JLS, `case` label need to have constant expression.
We cannot set `static final` to the field which is set at initialize().
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se9/html/jls-14.html#jls-14.11
I understood the reason for getting rid of the case statements. I was just
wondering if you weighed this code disruption vs. the value of what you are
fixing.
Your coding pattern for the following differs from the existing 200+
instances of VM.registerVMInitializedObserver() calls already in place. I
suggest you be consistent with existing code.
71 static {
72 VM.registerVMInitializedObserver(
73 (o, d) -> initialize(VM.getVM().getTypeDataBase()));
74 }
This style has been used in JavaThreadsPanel.java .
Ah, I missed that one case, but then it's one that you added. :)
I like it because it is simple.
I will change it to traditional style if other reviewer(s) suggest it.
I think consistency is important.
thanks,
Chris
Thanks,
Yasumasa
thanks,
Chris
On 11/27/17 11:49 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
Hi all,
Enum values in BasicType and BasicTypeSize are declared as const
values. However, it makes error prone when existing enum values
change.
They should refer to HotSpot values via VMStructs.
This issue has been pointed by Jini [1].
I uploaded webrev for this issue. Could you review it?
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8190837/webrev.00/
I cannot access JPRT. So I need a sponsor.
Thanks,
Yasumasa
[1]
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/2017-October/021965.html
