On Fri, 24 Oct 2025 14:06:03 GMT, Coleen Phillimore <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Yes, but don’t really see the benefit. It’s replacing a null string for >> `precond` in a crash. > > These null strings make me wish we had an assert with no strings if one isn't > provided. I suppose the "precond" string isn't much better. I don't like > null strings - it seems like you want to say why you're asserting this > condition or what it means, ie take the opportunity to provide a bit more > documentation. Like here you could say that monitorenter is only preempted > when the top frame is interpreted or runtime (which is coming from the > compiler right?), which I suppose is redundant with the condition. I suppose > nothing is better than "sanity" or "should be". I retract my suggestion to > use precond though. Others might believe it's better but I'm agnostic. So is it a compiled frame otherwise? Reporting the unexpected frame type might be useful. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27802#discussion_r2471812478
