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

List:       openjdk-serviceability-dev
Subject:    Re: RFR(XS): 8198585: add asserts to verify that ServiceUtil::visible_oop is not needed
From:       Chris Plummer <chris.plummer () oracle ! com>
Date:       2018-02-23 17:12:32
Message-ID: f4088306-e34c-1d9b-3058-f43c97969531 () oracle ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Ok. I'll make that change.

thanks,

Chris

On 2/23/18 6:45 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
> Instead of "assert(false, ...", I recommend "fatal(...".
> This will cause a failure in all build configs including 'release' bits.
>
> Dan
>
>
> On 2/22/18 8:16 PM, Chris Plummer wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Please review the following:
>>
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8198585
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cjplummer/8198585/webrev.00/webrev/
>>
>> Before removing ServiceUtil::visible_oop(), I want to make sure it 
>> really isn't needed. Supposedly it should never return false, thus 
>> negating the need for its existence. This change adds asserts 
>> whenever false is returned. If it makes it all the way through 
>> promotion testing, then I'll delete the ServiceUtil::visible_oop() 
>> code and the references to it.
>>
>> I tested by running all jdk and hotspot tier1-3 tests.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> Chris
>

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