On 12/6/19 6:12 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
On 12/6/19 17:24, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
On 12/6/19 6:26 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
On 12/6/19 13:52, Chris Plummer wrote:
On 12/6/19 1:18 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
On 12/6/19 11:07, Chris Plummer wrote:
On
On 12/6/19 3:26 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
On 12/6/19 13:52, Chris Plummer wrote:
On 12/6/19 1:18 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
On 12/6/19 11:07, Chris Plummer wrote:
On 12/5/19 6:45 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Serguei,
On 6/12/2019 11:31 am, serguei.spit...@oracle.com
On 12/6/19 17:24, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
On 12/6/19 6:26 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
On 12/6/19 13:52, Chris Plummer wrote:
On 12/6/19 1:18 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
On 12/6/19 11:07, Chris Plummer wrote:
On 12/5/19 6:45 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Serguei,
On
Hi David, Mandy, and Bob,
Thank you for reviewing this fix.
Please review a new version of the fix [1] that includes the following changes
comparing to the previous version of the webrev ( webrev.04)
1. The changes in Javadoc made in the webrev.04 comparing to webrev.03 and to
CSR [3] were
On 12/6/19 6:26 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
On 12/6/19 13:52, Chris Plummer wrote:
On 12/6/19 1:18 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
On 12/6/19 11:07, Chris Plummer wrote:
On 12/5/19 6:45 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Serguei,
On 6/12/2019 11:31 am, serguei.spit...@oracle.com
The PopFrame together with RedefineClasses is a part of the JVM TI
HotSwap feature.
The use case is to hot patch the methods.
If after class redefinition there are still some method frames then the
PopFrame is an option to "refresh" such frames.
I agree, this is unreliable and dangerous.
But
On 12/6/19 13:52, Chris Plummer wrote:
On 12/6/19 1:18 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
On 12/6/19 11:07, Chris Plummer wrote:
On 12/5/19 6:45 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Serguei,
On 6/12/2019 11:31 am, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Chris and Alex,
(I've also included Dan, David
This might be a dumb question, but how is PopFrame used in practice?
Re-invoking the method, especially with modified argument values seems
dangerous.
dl
On 12/6/19 1:18 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
On 12/6/19 11:07, Chris Plummer wrote:
On 12/5/19 6:45 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Serguei,
On 6/12/2019 11:31 am, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Chris and Alex,
(I've also included Dan, David and Dean to the mailing list)
We have
On 12/6/19 5:59 AM, Bob Vandette wrote:
On Dec 6, 2019, at 2:49 AM, David Holmes wrote:
src/jdk.management/share/classes/com/sun/management/OperatingSystemMXBean.java
The changes to allow for a return of -1 are somewhat more extensive than we
have previously discussed. These methods
On 12/6/19 11:07, Chris Plummer wrote:
On 12/5/19 6:45 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Serguei,
On 6/12/2019 11:31 am, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Chris and Alex,
(I've also included Dan, David and Dean to the mailing list)
We have to reach a consensus about this.
This is just part of
Thanks, Harold.
Serguei
On 12/6/19 10:29, Harold Seigel wrote:
Hi Serguei,
>> Is this new attribute for 14?
No. 15, maybe?
>>Will it also come from Amber?
Yes.
Harold
On 12/6/2019 1:27 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Forgot to ask.
Is this new attribute for 14?
Will it also come
On 12/5/19 6:45 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Serguei,
On 6/12/2019 11:31 am, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Chris and Alex,
(I've also included Dan, David and Dean to the mailing list)
We have to reach a consensus about this.
This is just part of a much broader issue with JVM TI that I
Forgot to ask.
Is this new attribute for 14?
Will it also come from Amber?
Thanks,
Serguei
On 12/6/19 10:21, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Harold,
Okay, thanks!
Thanks,
Serguei
On 12/6/19 05:16, Harold Seigel wrote:
There will be another unmodifiable attribute with sealed types
Hi Harold,
Okay, thanks!
Thanks,
Serguei
On 12/6/19 05:16, Harold Seigel wrote:
There will be another unmodifiable attribute with sealed types called
PermittedSubtypes.
Harold
On 12/5/2019 7:25 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi David,
Agreed. I was thinking about the same.
Martin, Christoph,
thanks for verifying this.
pushed.
-- Igor
> On Dec 6, 2019, at 2:51 AM, Doerr, Martin wrote:
>
> Hi Igor and Vladimir,
>
> the tests have passed on PPC64. Change is good. Thanks for checking with us.
>
> Best regards,
> Martin
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>>
+1
On 12/6/19 5:59 AM, Bob Vandette wrote:
On Dec 6, 2019, at 2:49 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Daniil,
I'm not familiar with all the details of the various API's involved here so
just a few general comments in places. I do have one major issue flagged below.
---
> On Dec 6, 2019, at 2:49 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>
> Hi Daniil,
>
> I'm not familiar with all the details of the various API's involved here so
> just a few general comments in places. I do have one major issue flagged
> below.
>
> ---
>
>
There will be another unmodifiable attribute with sealed types called
PermittedSubtypes.
Harold
On 12/5/2019 7:25 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi David,
Agreed. I was thinking about the same.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 12/5/19 2:52 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Looks good Harold!
If we get
Thanks David!
Harold
On 12/5/2019 5:52 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Looks good Harold!
If we get any more of these unmodifiable attributes we may have to
look at a way to refer to them more abstractly and only define them in
one place.
Thanks,
David
On 6/12/2019 12:28 am, Harold Seigel wrote:
20 matches
Mail list logo
