On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 02:42:58 GMT, Denghui Dong <dd...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Hi, >> >> Could I have a review of this fix that corrects the oop size value of >> dtrace_object_alloc(_base). >> >> JDK-8039904 added a new parameter 'size' to >> SharedRuntime::dtrace_object_alloc and dtrace_object_alloc_base, but didn't >> modified the callsites(interpreter/c1/c2). >> >> To make this fix as simple as possible, I overloaded >> dtrace_object_alloc_base rather than dtrace_object_alloc. >> >> Thanks, >> Denghui > > Denghui Dong has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last revision: > > update according to comments I understand now what you meant by the additional overload complicating the fix - I hadn't appreciated that may have been the reason for using different names for the functions originally. I'm still unclear why the lack of the size argument did not cause problems? I guess whatever random value was next on the stack got read as the size, but reading it caused no harm it was just incorrect. These changes look good to me now. Thanks, David ------------- Marked as reviewed by dholmes (Reviewer). PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/6181
