RFR: 8215500: ICRefillVerifierMark does not set the provided verfier as current

[Erik Österlund]

Hi Tobias,

Thanks for the review.

/Erik

On 2018-12-18 11:51, Tobias Hartmann wrote:
> Hi Erik,
>
> looks good to me too.
>
> Best regards,
> Tobias
>
> On 18.12.18 10:40, Erik Österlund wrote:
>> Hi Per,
>>
>> Thanks for the review. Will do that name change before pushing as suggested.
>>
>> /Erik
>>
>> On 2018-12-17 22:17, Per Liden wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/17/2018 08:16 PM, Erik Österlund wrote:
>>>> Hi Per,
>>>>
>>>> On 2018-12-17 19:12, Per Liden wrote:
>>>>> On 12/17/2018 06:57 PM, Erik Österlund wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ICRefillVerifierMark::ICRefillVerifierMark sets "this" as the current verifier, as opposed to
>>>>>> the verifier passed in. That is wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bug:
>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215500
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Webrev:
>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~eosterlund/8215500/webrev.00/
>>>>> Wow, one of those "how could this have ever worked?" ;) Should we forward declare
>>>>> ICRefillVerifier in thread.hpp to get some better type safety here and avoid the
>>>>> reinterpret_cast in icBuffer.cpp?
>>>> Sure. New webrev:
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~eosterlund/8215500/webrev.01/
>>> Looks good! However, I couldn't help by noticing that it seem like the
>>> "{set_,_,}missed_ic_stub_refill_mark" members in Thread should be called
>>> "missed_ic_stub_refill_verifier" now, right? Or maybe just "{set_,_,}ic_refill_verifier" to match
>>> the class name. Anyway, you decide, either way I don't need to see a new webrev.
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> Per
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> /Erik
>>>>
>>>>> cheers,
>>>>> Per