On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 15:34:55 GMT, Coleen Phillimore <cole...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/classfile/classLoaderData.cpp line 594: >> >>> 592: // Because native code (e.g. JVMTI agent) holding jmethod_ids may >>> access them >>> 593: // after the associated classes and class loader are unloaded, >>> subsequent lookups >>> 594: // for these ids will return null since they are no longer found in >>> the table. >> >> Perhaps: s/null/nullptr/ > > I thought the convention was that we were supposed to call it `null` in the > comments and `nullptr` in the code. I'm not sure, but your reasoning sounds good to me! >> src/hotspot/share/oops/method.cpp line 2063: >> >>> 2061: >>> 2062: // jmethodID handling >>> 2063: // jmethodIDs are 64-bit integers that will never run out and are >>> mapped in a table >> >> Should we have a `guarantee` or `assert` somewhere that the counter never >> wraps? > > Okay, I added one when we increment the jmethod_id_counter. > > // Update jmethodID global counter. > _jmethodID_counter++; > guarantee(_jmethodID_counter != 0, "must never go back to zero"); > > I think this will detect wraparound. Thanks! ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25267#discussion_r2151046551 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25267#discussion_r2151049919
