JEP 270 concerns

[Frederic Parain]

Hi Andrew,

It makes perfect sense.

I've created bug JDK-8172791 to track these issues.

Thank you for your in-depth analysis of the problems.

Fred

On 01/13/2017 03:50 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> 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.
>