On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 23:19:46 GMT, Richard Reingruber <rr...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> Continuing review [1] after transition to Git/Github. > > I still cannot reproduce the issue. > > RFC on alternatives: > > 1. Integrate this change and ignore future JVMTI_ERROR_INVALID_SLOT > 2. Don't ignore JVMTI_ERROR_INVALID_SLOT but integrate the rest of this > patch. If the test still fails with > JVMTI_ERROR_INVALID_SLOT we will at least know the depth of the frame. 3. Add > trace code to VM_GetOrSetLocal in > !PRODUCT or ASSERT configurations depending on an option or property. > Any other ideas? > > I'm in favour of 1. > > [1] > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/2020-September/032876.html This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: a4c6a99e Author: Richard Reingruber <rr...@openjdk.org> URL: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/commit/a4c6a99e Stats: 7 lines in 1 file changed: 0 ins; 4 del; 3 mod 8252593: [TESTBUG] serviceability/jvmti/GetLocalVariable/GetLocalWithoutSuspendTest.java failed with JVMTI_ERROR_INVALID_SLOT Reviewed-by: sspitsyn, cjplummer ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/142
