Hi Harold,
Thank you a lot for the review and comments!
I'll address your comments.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 6/4/20 07:09, Harold Seigel wrote:
Thank you a lot for the review and comments!
I'll address your comments.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 6/4/20 07:09, Harold Seigel wrote:
Hi Serguei,
The change looks good. Could you add a comment to check_attribute_arrays() saying that its caller should have a ResourceMark?
Also, I think that the log_trace arguments at line 724 are in the wrong order. attr_name should be after the_class->external_name().
I don't need to see a new webrev.
Thanks, Harold
On 6/4/2020 3:20 AM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Please, review a fix for:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8245321
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sspitsyn/webrevs/2020/jvmti-redef-refact.1/
Summary:
The jvmtiRedefineClasses.cpp functions check_nest_attributes and
check_permitted_subclasses_attribute have significant common part.
This fix is a refactoring which implements this common part into
the function check_attribute_arrays. And this function is used in
both check_nest_attributes and check_permitted_subclasses_attribute.
The check_record_attributes was initially considered to be included
into this refactoring. However, it has many differences in layout.
I've decided, it is not worth to introduce more complexity into this
refactoring in order to support this function as well. But, please.
let me know if this function refactoring is still desirable.
Testing:
Local test runs with the RedefineNestmateAttr and RedefinePermittedSubclassesAttr
tests on a Linux server are passed.
In progress: submit mach5 jobs with the same Nestmates and PermittedSubclasses tests.
Thanks,
Serguei
