JEP 270 concerns

[Andrew Haley]

On 12/01/17 15:28, Frederic Parain wrote:
> Now, if it appears that these hypothesis were wrong, and it
> is possible to add the checks in in-lined code without impacting
> performances and with a reasonable complexity in the JIT code,
> we could revisit these choices. Having the semantic of the
> annotation enforced strictly at the granularity of the annotated
> method would a nice thing, but how much are we ready to pay for
> the protection against this rare bug?
> 
> I hope it clarifies the implementation choices that have been
> made.

I take your point.  I think two things must be done:

1.  Correct the detection of inlined methods.  Not difficult, as we
discussed offthread.

2.  Fix assertion failures when we get a stack overflow in another
method with protection disabled.

Does that make sense?

Andrew.