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

List:       openjdk-serviceability-dev
Subject:    Re: 8248362: JVMTI frame operations should use Thread-Local Handshake
From:       Yasumasa Suenaga <suenaga () oss ! nttdata ! com>
Date:       2020-07-22 14:24:31
Message-ID: 14e245d4-bcee-f82e-1d5a-6c16cd8aa4a0 () oss ! nttdata ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Thanks David!

Your suggestion seems to work fine on submit repo.
I will send review request.

Yasumasa

On 2020/07/22 21:29, David Holmes wrote:
> On 22/07/2020 6:19 pm, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
> > On 2020/07/22 16:57, David Holmes wrote:
> > > Hi Yasumasa,
> > > 
> > > On 22/07/2020 5:39 pm, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > > 
> > > > I'm working for fixing JDK-8248362, but I saw some errors on submit repo.
> > > > Someone can share the details of \
> > > > mach5-one-ysuenaga-JDK-8248362-20200722-0550-12850261 ? 
> > > > I wonder why build task of linux-x64 was failed because I can do it on my \
> > > > Fedora 32 box.
> > > 
> > > [2020-07-22T06:21:49,141Z] \
> > > ./open/src/hotspot/share/prims/jvmtiThreadState.cpp:222:45: error: no member \
> > > named 'active_handshaker' in 'JavaThread' [2020-07-22T06:21:49,142Z]            \
> > > current_thread == get_thread()->active_handshaker(), [2020-07-22T06:21:49,142Z] \
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~  ^
> > 
> > Thanks David!
> > This statement is in guarantee(), so it seems to be failed to build for \
> > production VM. 
> > guarantee() call has been introduced in JDK-6471769, originally it was assert() \
> > call. Can we replace guarantee() to assert() at this point? or are there methods \
> > to detect the call is happened in direct handshake without active_handshaker()?
> 
> I would replace with assert. There's no non-debug query for the handshaker.
> 
> David
> -----
> 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Yasumasa
> > 
> > 
> > > David
> > > -----
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > 
> > > > Yasumasa


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