Hi Jeremy and David,
Sorry for being late to the party.
I'm also concerned about the Jeremy's spec update is more
intrusive than necessary.
One specifics of the new SampledObjectAlloc event is that it is
posted conditionally.
So, it is no
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 4:23 AM, David Holmes wrote:
> Hi Fred,
>
> On 19/06/2018 6:52 AM, Frederic Parain wrote:
>>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> Thank you for looking at this issue.
>>
>> The intend has never been to provide a command to easily crash the JVM :-)
XD
>> The patch was provided without any sa
On 19/06/2018 4:50 AM, Jeremy Manson wrote:
Yup! The paragraph meanders a bit. How about something like:
I'm not sure some of the change quite works. The original text considers
there to be three kinds of methods that can cause allocation when executed:
- Java (bytecode) methods
- JNI metho
Hi Fred,
On 19/06/2018 6:52 AM, Frederic Parain wrote:
Hi David,
Thank you for looking at this issue.
The intend has never been to provide a command to easily crash the JVM :-)
The patch was provided without any safety measures in purpose: to enable
explorations in order to see how badly thing
Hi David,
Thank you for looking at this issue.
The intend has never been to provide a command to easily crash the JVM :-)
The patch was provided without any safety measures in purpose: to enable
explorations in order to see how badly things could go south.
The final design must include a per-com
Hi Thomas,
Thank you for experimenting with the patch and providing feedback.
I’ve looked to VM.info, and the only issue seems to be this section
of vmError.cpp:
1064 if (Universe::is_fully_initialized()) {
1065 MutexLocker hl(Heap_lock);
1066 Universe::heap()->print_on_error(st);
1067
Yup! The paragraph meanders a bit. How about something like:
Sent when the virtual machine allocates an
Object visible to Java programming language code without using a
new bytecode variant or a JNI method.
Many approaches to tracking object allocation use a combination of
bytecode-based instrum
Thanks, Erik.
On 6/18/18, 10:26 AM, "Erik Helin" wrote:
On 06/18/2018 06:14 PM, Hohensee, Paul wrote:
> Thanks, Eric!
>
> I'd push, but it seems I don't seem to have permission at the moment. Who
should I contact to get that fixed?
That would be o...@openjdk.java.net.
On 06/18/2018 06:14 PM, Hohensee, Paul wrote:
Thanks, Eric!
I'd push, but it seems I don't seem to have permission at the moment. Who
should I contact to get that fixed?
That would be o...@openjdk.java.net.
Thanks,
Erik
Thanks,
Paul
On 6/18/18, 7:09 AM, "Erik Helin" wrote:
On 06/
Thanks, Eric!
I'd push, but it seems I don't seem to have permission at the moment. Who
should I contact to get that fixed?
Thanks,
Paul
On 6/18/18, 7:09 AM, "Erik Helin" wrote:
On 06/16/2018 09:00 PM, Hohensee, Paul wrote:
> Thanks for the re-review, Erik. New webrev with your fixe
On 16/06/2018 18:23, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
:
Is that by design?
It's pluggable. The two built-in vmid formats are the pid and pid@host
for local and remote respectively. I don't recall any discussion here
about identifying an application by name. I assume there would at least
be issues with u
Thanks for the review, Mandy. :)
On 6/17/18, 8:43 PM, "mandy chung" wrote:
Looks fine to me.
Mandy
On 6/16/18 12:00 PM, Hohensee, Paul wrote:
> Thanks for the re-review, Erik. New webrev with your fixes:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~phh/8195115/webrev.04/
On 06/16/2018 09:00 PM, Hohensee, Paul wrote:
Thanks for the re-review, Erik. New webrev with your fixes:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~phh/8195115/webrev.04/
The patch is good to go now, Reviewed.
Thanks,
Erik
Need another reviewer, please.
Thanks,
Paul
On 6/16/18, 1:25 AM, "Erik Helin"
Thanks, David!
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 8:21 AM, David Holmes wrote:
> Test update looks good!
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>
> On 14/06/2018 9:30 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> hopefully last changes, with feedback added from Coleen and David.
>>
>> Only changes in the provided regression t
Hi David,
Thank you very much!
Yes, sponsor this please!
best regards,
Boris
On 18.06.2018 07:54, David Holmes wrote:
I ran this through our testing and it was fine.
I can sponsor this for you if you like Boris.
Thanks,
David
On 14/06/2018 10:55 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Boris,
I add
On 18/06/2018 5:01 PM, Jeremy Manson wrote:
We haven't changed when a VM issues "VM object allocation" events.
There were references in the docs to a requirement to use bytecode
rewriting and JNI interception to track allocations. With
SampledObjectAlloc, this is no longer the case - SampledO
We haven't changed when a VM issues "VM object allocation" events.
There were references in the docs to a requirement to use bytecode
rewriting and JNI interception to track allocations. With
SampledObjectAlloc, this is no longer the case - SampledObjectAlloc can
track them. This change is suppo
17 matches
Mail list logo
