Right :)
Thanks again for the review!
/peter
> On 22 maj 2014, at 01:10, David Holmes wrote:
>
>> On 21/05/2014 11:01 PM, Peter Allwin wrote:
>> D’oh! Great catch, I’ll update before the push if that’s OK.
>
> Sure - I assume it is the comment that will be updated :)
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>
On 21/05/2014 11:01 PM, Peter Allwin wrote:
D’oh! Great catch, I’ll update before the push if that’s OK.
Sure - I assume it is the comment that will be updated :)
Thanks,
David
Thanks,
/peter
On 21 May 2014, at 13:32, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Peter,
One inconsistency
27 * Test to veri
Great! I’ll close my bug as a dup of 8026694.
/Staffan
On 21 maj 2014, at 18:32, Roland Westrelin wrote:
> Hi Staffan,
>
>> Please review this fix for a problem with compiler/ciReplay/TestSA.sh. It
>> fails with an exception because SA can’t find the values for some the enum
>> entries in De
Hi Staffan,
> Please review this fix for a problem with compiler/ciReplay/TestSA.sh. It
> fails with an exception because SA can’t find the values for some the enum
> entries in Deoptimization::DeoptReason since they are missing from
> vmStructs.cpp. The patch below adds them.
>
> bug: https:/
Looks good.
/Markus
-Original Message-
From: Staffan Larsen
Sent: den 21 maj 2014 15:45
To: serviceability-dev@openjdk.java.net serviceability-dev@openjdk.java.net;
hotspot-compiler-...@openjdk.java.net compiler
Subject: RFR: 8043637 compiler/ciReplay/TestSA.sh: java.lang.InternalError:
Please review this fix for a problem with compiler/ciReplay/TestSA.sh. It fails
with an exception because SA can’t find the values for some the enum entries in
Deoptimization::DeoptReason since they are missing from vmStructs.cpp. The
patch below adds them.
bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/br
D’oh! Great catch, I’ll update before the push if that’s OK.
Thanks,
/peter
On 21 May 2014, at 13:32, David Holmes wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> One inconsistency
>
> 27 * Test to verify GetObjectSize does not overflow on a 600K element int[]
>
> but
>
> 34 int[] a = new int[600_000_00
Hi Thomas and thanks for the feedback.
Interesting to see that you already have a design that is so close to
what we are proposing in this JEP.
I have added some comments in-line below.
On 2014-05-20 09:59, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
Hi all,
I like you proposal and hope this tracing system turns ou
I am ok with changes. Thank you for fixing this.
Pleas don't forget that I am not a Reviewer.
Leonid
On 21.05.2014 15:10, Peter Allwin wrote:
Thanks Leonid, Serguei and David for your reviews!
Updated webrev is here: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~allwin/8027230/webrev.01
Changes:
- Agen
Hi Peter,
One inconsistency
27 * Test to verify GetObjectSize does not overflow on a 600K element
int[]
but
34 int[] a = new int[600_000_000];
looks more like 600M
David
On 21/05/2014 9:10 PM, Peter Allwin wrote:
Thanks Leonid, Serguei and David for your reviews!
Updated web
Thanks Leonid, Serguei and David for your reviews!
Updated webrev is here: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~allwin/8027230/webrev.01
Changes:
- Agent process is now started trough ProcessBuilder
- Non 64bit platforms are immediately skipped
- Spacing before if/catch
-
Looks good!
/Markus
-Original Message-
From: Staffan Larsen
Sent: den 21 maj 2014 08:51
To: serviceability-dev@openjdk.java.net serviceability-dev@openjdk.java.net
Subject: RFR: [TESTBUG] sun/tools/jcmd/TestJcmdSanity.java failure in nightly
jdk9-dev fastdebug build
Please review this
On 21 maj 2014, at 09:06, David Holmes wrote:
> Wow this is service! I only just moved the bug this afternoon :)
But you made it so easy for me!
>
> On 21/05/2014 4:51 PM, Staffan Larsen wrote:
>> Please review this small fix to add -XX:+UsePerfData to the invocation of
>> the test. This is
Wow this is service! I only just moved the bug this afternoon :)
On 21/05/2014 4:51 PM, Staffan Larsen wrote:
Please review this small fix to add -XX:+UsePerfData to the invocation of the
test. This is needed because the test launches jcmd against it’s own process.
Looks good to me.
Thanks,
14 matches
Mail list logo
