RFR(S): 8240676: Meet not symmetric failure when running lucene on jdk8

[Tobias Hartmann]

Hi Roland,

On 20.03.20 15:54, Roland Westrelin wrote:
>> webrev.01 looks good to me but have you thought about using something like a verification depth
>> counter that bails out after a certain recursion depth instead of the flag?
> 
> What's your concern? That the patch is too intrusive? Or that it still
> has too much overhead?

My concern is that the patch is too intrusive. A recursion depth field that is only accessed from
the verification code seemed like a less intrusive fix.

> Another solution would be to attach the flag (or recursion depth) to
> Compile. Patch would then be much saller but not sure polluting Compile
> with this is better.

Right but on second thought that doesn't seem right. I think your patch is good to go.

Best regards,
Tobias