Hi Chris,
On 2020/04/06 15:46, Chris Plummer wrote:
Hi Yasumasa,
I'm not sure what you mean by "conflict some keys". Can you explain?
System properties stores in ConcurrentHashMap. `next` field would be used when
hashcode of key string is conflicted.
I think it would be better if we can add
Please ignore this email and post on the other RFR thread I started.
Chris
On 4/5/20 11:45 PM, Chris Plummer wrote:
Hello,
Please help review the following:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8242168
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cjplummer/8242168/webrev.00/
ClhsdbFindPC needs to be disa
[Sorry about the resend. Subject wasn't quite right the first time.]
Hello,
Please help review the following:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8242168
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cjplummer/8242168/webrev.00/
ClhsdbFindPC needs to be disabled when using -XX:+DeoptimizeALot because
it m
Hi Yasumasa,
I'm not sure what you mean by "conflict some keys". Can you explain?
thanks,
Chris
On 4/5/20 11:41 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
Hi Chris,
Almost your change looks good, but I have a question in
TestSysProps.java.
Can we conflict some keys in sysprops always? It is better if we c
Hello,
Please help review the following:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8242168
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cjplummer/8242168/webrev.00/
ClhsdbFindPC needs to be disabled when using -XX:+DeoptimizeALot because
it means the expected compiled frame may not be compiled. I also fixed
Cl
Hi Chris,
Almost your change looks good, but I have a question in TestSysProps.java.
Can we conflict some keys in sysprops always? It is better if we can do so, but
it is very difficult.
Thanks,
Yasumasa
On 2020/04/06 14:49, Chris Plummer wrote:
Hello,
Please help review the following:
h
Hello,
Please help review the following:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8242165
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cjplummer/8242165/webrev.03
Please see the CR for an explanation of the bug and the fix. If you need
some help with the SA code, let me know and I'll provide some details.
It
On 4/5/20 1:04 AM,
serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Egor,
The fix looks good to me.
Thank you for taking care about this optimization!
The call to validateVM() is not really needed
but does not harm as i
Hi Egor,
The fix looks good to me.
Thank you for taking care about this optimization!
The call to validateVM() is not really needed
but does not harm as it is an empty method.
I'll sponsor the push for you.
Will submit a ma