Got rid of the bold selection below to make it more readable.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 11/4/14 8:56 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
The fix looks good in general.
src/share/vm/oops/method.cpp
1785 bool contains(Method** m) {
1786 if (m == NULL) return false;
1787 for (JNIMethodBlockN
The fix looks good in general.
src/share/vm/oops/method.cpp
1785 bool contains(Method** m) {
1786 if (m == NULL) return false;
1787 for (JNIMethodBlockNode* b = &_head; b != NULL; b = b->_next) {
1788 if (b->_methods <= m && m < b->_methods + b->_number_of_methods) {
*1789
Hi Serguei,
On 3/11/2014 5:07 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
On 11/2/14 8:58 PM, David Holmes wrote:
On 1/11/2014 8:13 PM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
Serguei,
Thank you for good finding. This approach looks much better for me.
The fix looks good.
Is it necessary to release vmDeathLock l
Thanks Jaroslav!
David
On 4/11/2014 8:57 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Looks good.
-JB-
On 11/04/2014 11:48 AM, David Holmes wrote:
bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8036616
webrev: inline below
Trivial test modification contributed by Pavel Chistyakov. I've reviewed
it but woul
Hi Albert,
The fix looks good.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 11/4/14 5:01 AM, Albert Noll wrote:
Hi,
could I get reviews for this small patch?
Bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8062735
Problem:
The fix for JDK-8046809 added the CodeCacheSweeperThread, but did not
add this new type to SA.
Jeremy and Coleen,
Thank you for taking care about this bug!
The fix looks good to me.
I do not see any issues.
Coleen,
Please, let me know if you need any help with testing or anything else.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 11/4/14 11:57 AM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Jeremy and Coleen,
I'm r
On 11/4/14 12:43 PM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
On 11/04/2014 02:57 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Jeremy and Coleen,
I'm reviewing this too.
We also need to run the nsk.jvmti, nsk.jdi and jtreg jdi tests.
Hi Serguei, I ran all of vm.quick.testlist on this which includes
jvmti, jdi
On 11/04/2014 02:57 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Jeremy and Coleen,
I'm reviewing this too.
We also need to run the nsk.jvmti, nsk.jdi and jtreg jdi tests.
Hi Serguei, I ran all of vm.quick.testlist on this which includes
jvmti, jdi tests. I'll run jtreg jdi tests too (where ar
Hi Jeremy,
Having Chuck reply publicly to the review would be good. We miss seeing
his emails :)
On 11/04/2014 02:58 PM, Jeremy Manson wrote:
Thanks for taking a look, Coleen!
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Coleen Phillimore
mailto:coleen.phillim...@oracle.com>>
wrote:
Hi Jerem
Hi Jeremy and Coleen,
I'm reviewing this too.
We also need to run the nsk.jvmti, nsk.jdi and jtreg jdi tests.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 11/3/14 12:19 PM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
I reviewed your new code and it looks fine. I had one comment in
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jmanson/806211
Thanks for taking a look, Coleen!
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Coleen Phillimore <
coleen.phillim...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> I reviewed your new code and it looks fine. I had one comment in
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jmanson/8062116/webrev.00/src/
> share/vm/prims/jvmtiEnv
Hi,
could I get reviews for this small patch?
Bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8062735
Problem:
The fix for JDK-8046809 added the CodeCacheSweeperThread, but did not
add this new type to SA.
Solution:
Add type to SA.
Testing:
Failing test cases.
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.
On 11/04/2014 11:56 AM, David Holmes wrote:
On 4/11/2014 7:49 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
On 11/04/2014 07:50 AM, David Holmes wrote:
On 3/11/2014 10:37 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
May I have a (R)eviewer to take a look at this, please?
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8058506/webrev.0
Looks good.
-JB-
On 11/04/2014 11:48 AM, David Holmes wrote:
bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8036616
webrev: inline below
Trivial test modification contributed by Pavel Chistyakov. I've reviewed
it but would like a second review from serviceability please. I plan to
push via hs-
On 4/11/2014 7:49 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
On 11/04/2014 07:50 AM, David Holmes wrote:
On 3/11/2014 10:37 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
May I have a (R)eviewer to take a look at this, please?
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8058506/webrev.01
I don't understand the need for the semap
bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8036616
webrev: inline below
Trivial test modification contributed by Pavel Chistyakov. I've reviewed
it but would like a second review from serviceability please. I plan to
push via hs-rt forest.
Thanks,
David
diff -r ef6ec39fd6bd test/sun/jvm
On 11/04/2014 07:50 AM, David Holmes wrote:
On 3/11/2014 10:37 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
May I have a (R)eviewer to take a look at this, please?
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8058506/webrev.01
I don't understand the need for the semaphore given you do:
116 thread.joi
17 matches
Mail list logo
