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

[Marcus Larsson]

Hi Jon,

Putting the assert in a function would remove the information about file 
and line number for triggered asserts.
Perhaps we could make a macro for this, but I think it might just be 
simpler to keep them as regular asserts in this case.

Thanks,
Marcus


On 08/06/2014 07:43 PM, Jon Masamitsu wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>