On 16/02/2018 11:12 AM, Jeremy Manson wrote:
Previous bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6588467
And the review thread:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/2015-January/016356.html
I don't think the bug would have been obvious to a reviewer (or, indeed,
the author of the patch!), because we would have had to think about how
ticd.isCurrentVersion worked, and noticed the fact that some of the
fields are optional.
I misunderstood the connection to the old bug and review. This is a
pre-existing issue that wasn't noticed last time this code was updated -
right?
Thanks,
David
Jeremy
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 5:02 PM, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com
<mailto:david.hol...@oracle.com>> wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
On 16/02/2018 10:46 AM, Jeremy Manson wrote:
Hi folks,
Been a long time! I'd like someone to do a code review. This
is in code I wrote a few years ago, and got wrong. At the time,
David Holmes, Staffan Larsen, and Mandy Chung reviewed it. It
does mean that people
Was there no bug back then? Do you have a link to the review thread?
I don't recall this one. :)
Thanks,
David
using ThreadInfo.from(CompositeData) may be getting the wrong
values out for ThreadInfo, so it is definitely worth fixing.
The patch below fixes the bug, but is a pretty questionable
approach. Better approaches happily considered.
Patch:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jmanson/8198253/webrev.00/
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jmanson/8198253/webrev.00/>
Bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8198253
<https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8198253>
Thanks!
Jeremy
