[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openjdk-hotspot-runtime-dev
Subject:    Re: RFR 8243572: Multiple tests fail with assert(cld->klasses() != 0LL) failed: unexpected NULL for 
From:       Harold Seigel <harold.seigel () oracle ! com>
Date:       2020-04-30 13:31:38
Message-ID: 2f9e9a30-2735-75d8-6bbe-c91e654ad29e () oracle ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi,

I created JDK-8244192 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8244192> 
to deal with the "hidden" terminology issue.

Thanks, Harold

On 4/29/2020 1:12 PM, Harold Seigel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The purpose of this change is fix the frequent CI tier 7 failures and 
> it is being derailed by the 'hidden' terminology discussion. I'd like 
> to push the current fix (which does not do any renaming of 'hidden') 
> and open a new JFR RFE to deal with 'hidden' terminology.
>
> Does that sound okay?
>
> Thanks, Harold
>
> On 4/28/2020 11:59 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>> On 29/04/2020 9:37 am, Mandy Chung wrote:
>>> OK.  I can go with "weak hidden" in JFR description as it's informal.
>>
>> People will go back to the Hidden Classes JEP to try and discern what 
>> a "weak hidden" class is. It doesn't make sense to me reject use of 
>> "weak hidden" in the core functionality (ie the JEP) and yet allow 
>> "informal" use of "weak hidden" elsewhere - it will just raise more 
>> questions than it answers IMO.
>>
>> David
>>
>>> Mandy
>>>
>>> On 4/28/20 2:59 PM, Markus Gronlund wrote:
>>>>  “Hidden” genera (default) “Strong Hidden” species?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Weak is the default.
>>>
>>>> If need to make explicit, “Weak Hidden” vs “Strong Hidden”
>>>>
>>>> “Weak” as a term induces the, historically intuitive, idea of 
>>>> not-strong. “Regular” and “Normal” are too general for this 
>>>> concept, especially as Hidden Classes are introduced to be an 
>>>> alternative to  (historically) “Regular” and “Normal” classes.
>>>>
>>>> 2 cents
>>>>
>>>> Markus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>>> On 28 Apr 2020, at 23:12, Mandy Chung <mandy.chung@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/28/20 1:13 PM, John Rose wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 28, 2020, at 1:10 PM, Mandy Chung <mandy.chung@oracle.com 
>>>>>> <mailto:mandy.chung@oracle.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "non-strong" is the best term I can come up with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If strong is the non-default choice, then any of “regular”,
>>>>>> “normal”, or “weak” would be OK in my book.  I know
>>>>>> “weak” is no longer a technical term, but as an informal
>>>>>> opposite to “strong” it would work, now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "regular" or "normal" is a good one.   I didn't suggest that 
>>>>> because we use "normal class" to refer to non-hidden class. For 
>>>>> this specific discussion about JFR user-visible description, 
>>>>> "regular/normal hidden classes" is probably better.
>>>>>
>>>>>> (This is a big sign of progress:  There’s little remaining to
>>>>>> discuss except bike shed colors!)
>>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mandy
>>>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]