review request (S) 6866585 debug code in ciObjectFactory too slow

[John Coomes]

Tom Rodriguez (Thomas.Rodriguez at Sun.COM) wrote:
> Looks fine to me.

Many thanks.

-John

> On Aug 10, 2009, at 12:32 PM, John Coomes wrote:
> 
> > Tom Rodriguez (Thomas.Rodriguez at Sun.COM) wrote:
> >> Sure.
> >
> > Ok.  I've updated the webrev at
> >
> > 	http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcoomes/6866585-ci-debug/
> >
> > so the loops over the _ci_objects array in get() and insert() are all
> > under control of the globals.hpp var CIObjectFactoryVerify.
> >
> > -John
> >
> >> On Aug 7, 2009, at 1:04 PM, John Coomes wrote:
> >>
> >>> John Rose (John.Rose at Sun.COM) wrote:
> >>>> On Aug 6, 2009, at 2:15 PM, John Coomes wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In the short-term, I just want to be able to check in my test  
> >>>>> case.
> >>>>> How about if I restore the debugging code, but put it under
> >>>>> control of
> >>>>> the CIObjectFactoryVerify option?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'll also file a bug to capture the comments.
> >>>>
> >>>> Good.  I very much like Tom/Keith/Ramki's suggestions of  
> >>>> simplifying
> >>>> the code and reducing perm. distinctions.
> >>>
> >>> I interpret this as you're ok with putting the debugging code under
> >>> control of the option for now, as long as I capture the discussion  
> >>> in
> >>> a bug so it gets fixed properly.  Tom, you didn't like the idea  
> >>> much.
> >>> Since John is willing to fix it properly--are you ok with it now?
> >>>
> >>>> This internal CI simplification is a natural add-on to my
> >>>> nonperm-6863023 work.  Shall I roll it in, or make a separate bug?
> >>>
> >>> I'd think of your reviewers--what would be easier for them?  IMHO,
> >>> smaller is usually better.
> >>>
> >>> -John
> >>>
> >>
> >
>