On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 19:53:10 GMT, Harold Seigel wrote:
>> Please review this fix for JDK-8285792. The fix removes print statements
>> from check_signal_handler() so that it doesn't print all the handlers every
>> time it finds one that is modified. Instead, it returns true if the handler
>>
On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 19:53:10 GMT, Harold Seigel wrote:
>> Please review this fix for JDK-8285792. The fix removes print statements
>> from check_signal_handler() so that it doesn't print all the handlers every
>> time it finds one that is modified. Instead, it returns true if the handler
>>
On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 19:53:10 GMT, Harold Seigel wrote:
>> Please review this fix for JDK-8285792. The fix removes print statements
>> from check_signal_handler() so that it doesn't print all the handlers every
>> time it finds one that is modified. Instead, it returns true if the handler
>>
> Please review this fix for JDK-8285792. The fix removes print statements
> from check_signal_handler() so that it doesn't print all the handlers every
> time it finds one that is modified. Instead, it returns true if the handler
> is modified, false otherwise. Its caller, user_handler(), th
On Mon, 25 Jul 2022 21:45:30 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> Harold Seigel has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> SIGFPE change
>
> src/hotspot/os/posix/signals_posix.cpp line 843:
>
>> 841: // Compare both sigaction structures (
> Please review this fix for JDK-8285792. The fix removes print statements
> from check_signal_handler() so that it doesn't print all the handlers every
> time it finds one that is modified. Instead, it returns true if the handler
> is modified, false otherwise. Its caller, user_handler(), th
On Mon, 25 Jul 2022 21:52:26 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> Please review this fix for JDK-8285792. The fix removes print statements
>> from check_signal_handler() so that it doesn't print all the handlers every
>> time it finds one that is modified. Instead, it returns true if the handler
>> i
On Mon, 25 Jul 2022 21:58:00 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> Harold Seigel has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Consolidate java test files, change tested signals
>
> test/hotspot/jtreg/runtime/posixSig/TestPsig.java line 28:
>
>
> Please review this fix for JDK-8285792. The fix removes print statements
> from check_signal_handler() so that it doesn't print all the handlers every
> time it finds one that is modified. Instead, it returns true if the handler
> is modified, false otherwise. Its caller, user_handler(), th
On Mon, 25 Jul 2022 20:50:07 GMT, Phil Race wrote:
>> So the VM warnings are something of a mild annoyance that we've worked
>> around in this test but it never made sense to me what this has to do with
>> JNI ?
At some point it was decided that checkJNI should check for certain user
defined
On Mon, 25 Jul 2022 17:21:27 GMT, Harold Seigel wrote:
> Please review this fix for JDK-8285792. The fix removes print statements
> from check_signal_handler() so that it doesn't print all the handlers every
> time it finds one that is modified. Instead, it returns true if the handler
> is m
On Mon, 25 Jul 2022 17:21:27 GMT, Harold Seigel wrote:
> Please review this fix for JDK-8285792. The fix removes print statements
> from check_signal_handler() so that it doesn't print all the handlers every
> time it finds one that is modified. Instead, it returns true if the handler
> is m
On Mon, 25 Jul 2022 19:29:52 GMT, Harold Seigel wrote:
> I ran the test for JDK-8279878 after removing both this fix and the fix for
> JDK-8279878 and the test still passed. So I don't think its failure was
> related to this issue. This fix prevents the output from occurring more than
> once.
On Mon, 25 Jul 2022 17:21:27 GMT, Harold Seigel wrote:
> Please review this fix for JDK-8285792. The fix removes print statements
> from check_signal_handler() so that it doesn't print all the handlers every
> time it finds one that is modified. Instead, it returns true if the handler
> is m
On Mon, 25 Jul 2022 17:21:27 GMT, Harold Seigel wrote:
> Please review this fix for JDK-8285792. The fix removes print statements
> from check_signal_handler() so that it doesn't print all the handlers every
> time it finds one that is modified. Instead, it returns true if the handler
> is m
Please review this fix for JDK-8285792. The fix removes print statements from
check_signal_handler() so that it doesn't print all the handlers every time it
finds one that is modified. Instead, it returns true if the handler is
modified, false otherwise. Its caller, user_handler(), then print
16 matches
Mail list logo
