Looks good!
thanks,
Chris
On 6/4/19 11:22 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Chris,
Thank you a lot for reviewing this!
On 6/4/19 22:17, Chris Plummer wrote:
Hi Serguei,
Although a nit, what I was getting at in the CSR discussion is this
inconsistency:
2827 The specified thread must be suspended or must be the
current thread.
2940 Thread was not the current thread and was not suspended.
The second line reverses the order of the requirements given in the
first line. While both are correct, it would be nice if they both
presented the requirements in the same order. The line at 2940 used
to read:
2940 Thread was not suspended and was not the current thread.
Which if left unchanged (and also used as the replacement text for
line 2852) then all the lines would consistent.
Okay, thanks.
Then, there are 6 similar spots in the ForceEarlyReturn<Type>
functions which also have to be consistent.
All of them originally state this:
"Thread was not the current thread and was not suspended."
I hope, the update v2 below makes all the spots consistent.
Updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sspitsyn/webrevs/2019/8205126-jvmti-spec-popframe.2/
Updated JVMTI spec:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sspitsyn/webrevs/2019/8205126-jvmti-spec-popframe.2/jvmti.html
Updated specdiff:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sspitsyn/webrevs/2019/8205126-jvmti-spec-popframe.2/jvmti-specdiff
Thanks,
Serguei
thanks,
Chris
On 6/4/19 4:30 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Please, review a fix for the JVMTI spec bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8205126
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sspitsyn/webrevs/2019/8205126-jvmti-spec-popframe.1/
Related CSR:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8225142
Specdiff:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sspitsyn/webrevs/2019/8205126-jvmti-spec-popframe.1/jvmti-specdiff/
Summary:
The JVMTI PopFrame() spec does not match the implementation.
It says the specified thread can not be the current thread.
The fix aligns:
- spec with implementaion
- PopFrame spec with ForceEarlyReturn spec
Thanks,
Serguei
