On 21/11/2018 9:04 am, JC Beyler wrote:
Also +1 for the fix,
If the submit repo is enough for testing, I can do the legwork to test
it and push it once it passes,
Not sure if submit-repo will do much JVM TI testing ... I think we need
tier 3 for JVM TI and pretty sure submit-repo is only tier 1.
But thanks for the offer.
David
Jc
Ps: same for the other one he submitted
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 2:58 PM David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com
<mailto:david.hol...@oracle.com>> wrote:
+1 on the fix.
Simon is neither Committer nor Author so will need a sponsor.
Thanks,
David
On 21/11/2018 4:36 am, serguei.spit...@oracle.com
<mailto:serguei.spit...@oracle.com> wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> The fix looks good.
> Thank you for taking care about it!
>
> Questions:
> - Do you have an Author status?
> - You probably need a sponsor for this, do you?
>
> Thanks,
> Serguei
>
>
> On 11/20/18 06:34, Simon Tooke wrote:
>> While compiling the JDK with GCC 8.1, I discovered an invalid
bit test
>> in
>>
test/hotspot/jtreg/serviceability/jvmti/StartPhase/AllowedFunctions/libAllowedFunctions.c.
>>
>>
>>
>> (status & JVMTI_CLASS_STATUS_INITIALIZED) == 1
>>
>> Which only has a chance of being true if
JVMTI_CLASS_STATUS_INITIALIZED
>> has a value 1 (its actual value is 4, but that's beside the point).
>> My proposed fix is to test for != 0 instead. I chose this
instead of
>> testing for equality to JVMTI_CLASS_STATUS_INITIALIZED purely for
>> cosmetic reasons.
>>
>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8214105
>> webrev:
>>
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/stooke/JDK-8214105/01/webrev/
>>
>>
>> Please let me know what you think.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Simon
>>
>>
>
--
Thanks,
Jc
