On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 04:35:58 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review for this cleanup that's requested in
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8076089?
>
> The change here removes a package private method
> `sun.management.Util.newException(Exception e)` and inlines its
> i
On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 04:35:58 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review for this cleanup that's requested in
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8076089?
>
> The change here removes a package private method
> `sun.management.Util.newException(Exception e)` and inlines its
> i
On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 04:35:58 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review for this cleanup that's requested in
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8076089?
>
> The change here removes a package private method
> `sun.management.Util.newException(Exception e)` and inlines its
> i
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 22:07:37 GMT, Chris Plummer wrote:
> It's possible for an address to be in the codecache but not in any CodeBlob.
> Don't assert in this case.
>
> Note I couldn't reproduce this failure. Not sure why since it seemed to
> reproduce pretty readily in our CI tier7, and I ran w
On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 18:22:13 GMT, Chris Plummer wrote:
>> For any SA test that attaches to an OSX process (this would be all SA tests
>> except for those that test core file support), there is a check to make sure
>> that the target jvm process is not a signed binary. If it is,
>> SkippedExcep
> Changes:
> - ClassFileReconstituter is updated to restore "MethodParameters" attribute;
> - handling of the attribute in VM_RedefineClasses is moved to be consistent
> with other code (like local variable table);
> - copied ClassTransformer class (from test/jdk/com/sun/jdi/lib/jdb) to
> /test/l
On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 05:39:43 GMT, Chris Plummer wrote:
> The changes look good except I haven't look at the new test that closely. It
> really could use a high level explanation of how the test works, plus some
> embedded comments. Too much to figure out by just looking at the code. Also,
> is
On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 16:27:24 GMT, Alex Menkov wrote:
>> Changes:
>> - ClassFileReconstituter is updated to restore "MethodParameters" attribute;
>> - handling of the attribute in VM_RedefineClasses is moved to be consistent
>> with other code (like local variable table);
>> - copied ClassTransfo
On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 07:23:00 GMT, Serguei Spitsyn wrote:
>> Alex Menkov has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> fixed condition
>
> test/jdk/java/lang/instrument/RetransformWithMethodParametersTest.java line
> 54:
>
>> 52: impo
On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 04:35:58 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review for this cleanup that's requested in
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8076089?
>
> The change here removes a package private method
> `sun.management.Util.newException(Exception e)` and inlines its
> i
On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 18:22:13 GMT, Chris Plummer wrote:
>> For any SA test that attaches to an OSX process (this would be all SA tests
>> except for those that test core file support), there is a check to make sure
>> that the target jvm process is not a signed binary. If it is,
>> SkippedExcep
On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 06:17:25 GMT, Chris Plummer wrote:
> For any SA test that attaches to an OSX process (this would be all SA tests
> except for those that test core file support), there is a check to make sure
> that the target jvm process is not a signed binary. If it is,
> SkippedException
This test is failing in the loom repo when using -Xcomp. The reason is because
loom introduced doing a full GC in the codecache sweeper, which causes some of
the Objects referenced by ObjectMonitors to be GC'd. The fix is to check for
the null Objects so we don't get an NPE.
I'm choosing to fix
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 22:07:37 GMT, Chris Plummer wrote:
> It's possible for an address to be in the codecache but not in any CodeBlob.
> Don't assert in this case.
>
> Note I couldn't reproduce this failure. Not sure why since it seemed to
> reproduce pretty readily in our CI tier7, and I ran w
On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 20:15:59 GMT, Chris Plummer wrote:
> This test is failing in the loom repo when using -Xcomp. The reason is
> because loom introduced doing a full GC in the codecache sweeper, which
> causes some of the Objects referenced by ObjectMonitors to be GC'd. The fix
> is to check
On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 20:15:59 GMT, Chris Plummer wrote:
> This test is failing in the loom repo when using -Xcomp. The reason is
> because loom introduced doing a full GC in the codecache sweeper, which
> causes some of the Objects referenced by ObjectMonitors to be GC'd. The fix
> is to check
On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 04:35:58 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review for this cleanup that's requested in
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8076089?
>
> The change here removes a package private method
> `sun.management.Util.newException(Exception e)` and inlines its
> i
On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 04:35:58 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review for this cleanup that's requested in
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8076089?
>
> The change here removes a package private method
> `sun.management.Util.newException(Exception e)` and inlines its
> i
On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 16:27:24 GMT, Alex Menkov wrote:
>> Changes:
>> - ClassFileReconstituter is updated to restore "MethodParameters" attribute;
>> - handling of the attribute in VM_RedefineClasses is moved to be consistent
>> with other code (like local variable table);
>> - copied ClassTransfo
19 matches
Mail list logo
