On Tue, 17 May 2022 14:55:56 GMT, Thomas Stuefe <stu...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> But the crash-handler does not prevent that `guarantee` aborts the VM, as we >> discussed already in my related PR. My comment was more a suggestion and >> related to "And this is the only place we will ever use ASGCTMark" by >> @dholmes-ora . I agree with you that changing JFR should be done in another >> PR. > >> AFAIK, currently JFR is 'wrapping' the code in a crash-handler. We can take >> a look at reusing this approach there in some follow-up PR but for now I >> would really prefer getting this one merged without attaching any more >> bells&whistles. > > @jbachorik No, please don't do that. That approach is very unsafe and should > be used with extreme care. I would actually prefer for it to get removed > completely, not to be reused. I thought that "this approach" referred to the approach of this PR (possibly renaming the flag), as CrashProtection is orthogonal to the issue that this PR solves. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8549
