RFR(XXS): 8043180: SIGSEGV in Events::log_deopt_message

[Vladimir Kozlov]

Igor,

Why you placed STATIC_ASSERT inside methods? Can they be after arrays initialization code?

Thanks,
Vladimir

On 5/14/14 10:01 PM, Igor Veresov wrote:
> I implemented a functionality mimicking static_assert in C++11 only to notice that we already have a STATIC_ASSERT in debug.hpp.
> Anyways, here is the solution that asserts the proper array sizes statically.
>
> Webrev:  http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iveresov/8043180/webrev.02
>
> igor
>
> On May 14, 2014, at 6:05 PM, Christian Thalinger <christian.thalinger at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, something like this.  Better would be to check all entries in a verify method.  Also, can we be sure that undefined entries are initialized to zero on all platforms?
>>
>> On May 14, 2014, at 5:29 PM, Igor Veresov <igor.veresov at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Don’t quite know an easy way to that statically, but we can check at runtime:
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iveresov/8043180/webrev.01
>>>
>>> igor
>>>
>>> On May 14, 2014, at 5:07 PM, Christian Thalinger <christian.thalinger at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can we add verification code to make sure this is the case?
>>>>
>>>> const char* Deoptimization::_trap_reason_name[Reason_LIMIT] = {
>>>>    // Note:  Keep this in sync. with enum DeoptReason.
>>>>
>>>> And maybe this one too?
>>>>
>>>> const char* Deoptimization::_trap_action_name[Action_LIMIT] = {
>>>>    // Note:  Keep this in sync. with enum DeoptAction.
>>>>
>>>> On May 14, 2014, at 4:49 PM, Igor Veresov <igor.veresov at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Forgot to name the deopt reason in the aging change. Also fixed some related LogCompilation printing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iveresov/8043180/webrev.00/
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> igor
>>>>
>>>
>>
>