On 9/3/15 5:45 PM, Kim Barrett wrote:
On Sep 3, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty <[email protected]>
wrote:
Kim,
Wow... Not at all where I was expecting this review to go. Normally
I continue a review cycle until I can negotiate agreement amongst
all the reviewers, but I can see that's just not going to happen
with this review.
Short version:
I'll take some of the feedback from this review and I'll make
some minor changes, but I have no plans to change the code to
address most of these comments.
Slightly longer version:
The fix that I have in hand resolves the issues that I was
trying to fix. It also resolves the issue described in
JDK-8129978. Additional changes will require a new bug or,
if you wish, you can reopen this bug:
JDK-8129978 SIGSEGV when parsing command line options
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8129978
and use it to make additional changes. I will be on vacation
next week and David Holmes will be on vacation for a month
starting next week. Any further work in this area should
wait until David returns since he has strong opinions on
this code.
For the record, I'm OK with this change having been pushed.
Thanks! I was hoping that would be the case...
While I'm
at least at present still in disagreement with Dan about the predicate
being used to decide whether to destroy the PerfData, this change is
an improvement on the status quo, and that predicate can be fixed
separately if needed.
I have some additional responses to Dan, but might not finish them
before he goes on vacation, so wanted to get this reply out before
then. Have a great vacation.
Thanks!That's the plan...
Dan
