Joe, I'm ok with this approach.
Bob. On May 22, 2013, at 3:27 PM, Joseph Provino wrote: > Is there a consensus what is in the webrev is okay? > > The change is to include forte.cpp in the minimal jvm but to > conditionalize the code so that only AsyncGetCallTrace() > is defined with the minimal jvm. > > Webrev is here: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jprovino/8013461/webrev.01 > > JDK-8013461 https://jbs.oracle.com/bugs/browse/JDK-8013461 > There is a symbol AsyncGetCallTrace in libjvm.symbols that does not exist > in > minimal/libjvm.a when DEBUG_LEVEL == release > > joe > > On 05/21/2013 04:52 PM, JOSEPH PROVINO wrote: >> >> On 5/21/2013 4:00 PM, Oleg Mazurov wrote: >>> Though formally not part of the Solaris Studio team any more here is my >>> opinion based on my recollection of how I implemented interaction with the >>> JVM via AsyncGetCallTrace. >>> It's looked up using dlsym. If the symbol is not there Java callstack >>> collection is shut down. I understand in your case even JVMTI is not there >>> so the dlsym call will not be made. >>> From that perspective there is no difference whether the symbol is present >>> and returns an error code or not present at all. >> >> Oleg, then it sounds like what we have will work. >> >> Thanks for the quick reply. >> >> joe >> >>> >>> -- Oleg >>> >>> On 5/21/2013 12:19 PM, JOSEPH PROVINO wrote: >>>> >>>> On 5/21/2013 3:16 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote: >>>>> On 5/21/13 11:26 AM, JOSEPH PROVINO wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 5/21/2013 2:23 PM, Staffan Larsen wrote: >>>>>>> On 21 maj 2013, at 17:35, JOSEPH PROVINO <joseph.prov...@oracle.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5/21/2013 3:06 AM, David Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi Staffan, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 21/05/2013 4:49 PM, Staffan Larsen wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 21 maj 2013, at 04:34, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <added servicability> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joe, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> As I have previously stated you copied the struct definitions >>>>>>>>>>> instead of moving them outside the ifdef. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Serviceability folk: we are particularly interested in whether the >>>>>>>>>>> use of ticks_no_class_load is deemed appropriate in this situation. >>>>>>>>>>> Who will be consuming this value? >>>>>>>>>> Since you have opted for the simple fix of having an exported but >>>>>>>>>> non-functional AsyncGetCallTrace instead of actually removing the >>>>>>>>>> symbol from the symbol files (which is the proposed solution in the >>>>>>>>>> bug report), >>>>>>>>> That would be a simpler solution semantically but the only way I can >>>>>>>>> see to do that is to use a text replacement mechanism in the build >>>>>>>>> files - as is done for the dynamic vtable symbols. I find that less >>>>>>>>> appealing than simply exporting an interface that is configured to >>>>>>>>> report an error (which is essentially what all the optional >>>>>>>>> interfaces do under the minimal VM). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I would like you to include a comment about this in the source. >>>>>>>>>> Right now it's very unclear why there is an exported function that >>>>>>>>>> only returns an error. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As to the appropriate return value, I don't know. The only caller >>>>>>>>>> should be the Sun Studio profiler, >>>>>> Does anyone know where to find instructions on how to run the collector >>>>>> which would get the error return value? >>>>>>>>>> and I'm not sure how it will handle this case if ever run. The >>>>>>>>>> possible return values aren't very well documented. >>>>>>>>> I guess we need to try and run it to find out. >>>>>>>> Okay, do either of you feel strongly about how this should be fixed -- >>>>>>>> return an error or remove the symbol? >>>>>>> No, I don't feel strongly either way, but a comment in the code would >>>>>>> be nice. >>>>>> How much effort should I put into finding out what Sun Studio profiler >>>>>> does when it gets -1? >>>>> >>>>> Let's ask the Solaris Studio guys directly. >>>>> I'm adding Oleg to the mailing list. >>>>> >>>>> Oleg, >>>>> >>>>> Could you, please, share your view on this problem? >>>> >>>> In particular what will the Sun Studio Profiler collector do if it gets >>>> the error >>>> >>>> trace->num_frames = ticks_no_class_load; // -1 >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> joe >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Serguei >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> joe >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> /Staffan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> joe >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> David >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> /Staffan >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>> David >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 21/05/2013 5:10 AM, JOSEPH PROVINO wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> The change is to include forte.cpp in the minimal jvm but to >>>>>>>>>>>> conditionalize the code so that >>>>>>>>>>>> only AsyncGetCallTrace() is defined with the minimal jvm. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Webrev is here: >>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jprovino/8013461/webrev.00/ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> * JDK-8013461 >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://jbs.oracle.com/bugs/browse/JDK-8013461>There is >>>>>>>>>>>> a symbol AsyncGetCallTrace in libjvm.symbols that does not >>>>>>>>>>>> exist in >>>>>>>>>>>> minimal/libjvm.a when DEBUG_LEVEL == release >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://jbs.oracle.com/bugs/browse/JDK-8013461> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> joe >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
