RFR (XS): 80357290: Code using assert(is_oop_or_null) needs better error messages

[Jon Masamitsu]

Marcus,

There are debug functions that just do assertion checking.
For example, assert_locked_or_safepoint() in mutexLocker.cpp.
Would it make it easier to create an

void assert_is_oop_or_null(oop obj) {
   assert(obj->is_oop_or_null(), err_msg())"Expected an oop or NULL at " 
PTR_FORMAT, p2i(obj);
}

and use that where you can?  Some of the uses have more specific messages
so this won't work everywhere.

Jon



On 8/6/2014 6:42 AM, Marcus Larsson wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> I like your suggestion and updated the changeset.
>
> New CR:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~brutisso/webrev-8035729v2/
>
> Thanks,
> Marcus
>
> On 08/06/2014 11:24 AM, Thomas Schatzl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, 2014-08-06 at 10:28 +0200, Marcus Larsson wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Can I have reviews for this small change adding oop information to
>>> is_oop_or_null assert fail messages?
>>>
>>> CR:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~brutisso/webrev-8035729/
>>>
>>> Bug:
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8035729/
>>    not sure what the other think, but is it worth to try to make the
>> error messages themselves be more uniform?
>> While I do not want to be all the same, we have:
>>
>> 1) expected an oop or NULL
>> 2) expected an oop or NULL:
>> 3) Not an oop? (
>> 4) check for header:
>> 5) should be an oop now:
>> 6) Object should be whole at this point:
>> 7) Not an oop:
>> 8) discovered field is bad:
>> 9) bad referent:
>> 10) bad next field:
>> 11) bad discovered field:
>> 12) should always be an oop:
>>
>> Some suggestions:
>>
>> - Capitalize the first letter of the sentences
>> - change 1 to "Expected an oop or NULL at "
>> - replace 2,3,5,6,7,12 by 1
>> - change 4,9-11 to "Expected an oop for <type> field at "
>>
>> Otherwise the change is good.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>    Thomas
>>
>>
>>
>