RFR(S): 8142341: GC: current flags need ranges to be implemented

[Tom Benson]

Hi Sangheon,

On 12/4/2015 3:01 PM, sangheon.kim wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> On 12/04/2015 11:17 AM, Tom Benson wrote:
>> Hi Sangheon,
>> I'm also also OK with the change, but I found the wording of this 
>> comment a little confusing, because 'value' is also the name of the 
>> argument which is the HeapBaseMinAddress being checked:
>>
>>   554  // But below check is okay as the wrong value means bigger 
>> than the value should be.
>>
>> How about something like: If an overflow happened in 
>> Arguments::set_heap_size(), MaxHeapSize will have too large a value. 
>> Check for this by ensuring that MaxHeapSize plus the requested min 
>> base address still fit within max_uintx.
>> ?
> Your suggestion seems much cleaner. I will use this!
> Do you need a new webrev for this?
>
No, I'm OK with it.  (Assuming you're also going to remove the existing 
553. 8^)  )
Thanks,
Tom


> Thanks,
> Sangheon
>
>
>> Tnx,
>> Tom
>>
>>