On 8/11/19 9:49 PM, David Holmes wrote:
On 11/08/2019 2:50 pm, Mandy Chung wrote:
On 8/10/19 12:30 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
On 8/9/19 10:19 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
An earlier version of this patch was reviewed [1] but I
didn't get back to explore the other approach. I rebase
the patch and take out the hotspot change which will be
covered by JDK-8229375:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk14//8193325/webrev.01
I wonder if bci=-1 is meaningful, and should be returned when BCI is
not available. After this patch, it would be converted to 65536?
This is my query as well. It is not obvious to me that the VM will
never set a BCI of -1
Frederic adds an assert to ensure that bci is a valid value [1] in the
fix for JDK-8229375. This would help catching the odd case with invalid
BCI.
Alternatively, we can make bci an int (as Alekey suggests) that does not
increase the object size:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk14/8193325/webrev.02/
This means that this will replace Frederic's proposed patch for JDK-8229375.
What do you think?
Mandy
[1]
https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-runtime-dev/2019-August/035596.html
