Re: RFR(s): 8204243: remove Thread.destroy() and Thread.stop(Throwable)

[serguei.spit...@oracle.com]

Hi Stuart, The Serviceability changes look good. But the fix below is not clear to me: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~smarks/reviews/8204243/webrev.1/src/hotspot/share/prims/jvmti.xml.udiff.html <function id="StopThread" num="7"> <synopsis>Stop Thread</synopsis> <description> - Send the specified asynchronous exception to the specified thread - (similar to <code>java.lang.Thread.stop</code>). + Send the specified asynchronous exception to the specified thread. Normally, this function is used to kill the specified thread with an - instance of the exception <code>ThreadDeath</code>. + instance of the exception <code>ThreadDeath</code>, similar to + <code>java.lang.Thread.stop</code>. </description> A reference to the java.lang.Thread.stop has been removed in one place and added in another. I thought, we wanted to get rid of these references in the spec. Do I miss anything? Could you, explain this a little bit? Thanks, Serguei On 6/5/18 17:05, Stuart Marks wrote: [adding serviceability-dev] Hi serviceability folks, I'm in the process of removing Thread.destroy() and Thread.stop(Throwable) from the Java SE API. Alan and David have pointed out that there are some cross-references to Thread.stop(Throwable) in the JDWP and JVMTI specs, as well as in the JDI ThreadReference API. I've adjusted the relevant files. See please review this updated webrev:     http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~smarks/reviews/8204243/webrev.1/ For context, please see the full review thread on core-libs-dev:     http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2018-June/053536.html On 6/4/18 11:11 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: The source file that is used to generate the JDWP protocol code and the spec is in make/data/jdwp/jdwp.spec. The JVM TI spec is at src/hotspot/share/prims/jvmti.xml. It should be okay to skip those for this change-set, assuming it is followed up quickly with another change-set to update those specs. OK. I took a look at those other files and they seem simple enough to update as part of this changeset. If there aren't any objections from anyone, might as well get this all done at once. Thanks, s'marks