Re: RFR: 8318895: Deoptimization results in incorrect lightweight locking stack [v3]

2024-01-29 Thread David Holmes
On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 10:41:16 GMT, Roman Kennke wrote: >> See JBS issue for details. >> >> I basically: >> - took the test-modification and turned it into its own test-case >> - added test runners for lightweight- and legacy-locking, so that we keep >> testing both, no matter what is the defau

Re: RFR: 8318895: Deoptimization results in incorrect lightweight locking stack [v3]

2023-11-10 Thread Roman Kennke
On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 10:41:16 GMT, Roman Kennke wrote: >> See JBS issue for details. >> >> I basically: >> - took the test-modification and turned it into its own test-case >> - added test runners for lightweight- and legacy-locking, so that we keep >> testing both, no matter what is the defau

Re: RFR: 8318895: Deoptimization results in incorrect lightweight locking stack [v3]

2023-11-10 Thread Roman Kennke
> See JBS issue for details. > > I basically: > - took the test-modification and turned it into its own test-case > - added test runners for lightweight- and legacy-locking, so that we keep > testing both, no matter what is the default > - added Axels fix (mentioned in the JBS issue) with the