Request for review: 7174978: NPG: Fix bactrace builder for class redefinition

[serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com]

Coleen,

It looks good in general.
Just some questions below.


src/share/vm/classfile/javaClasses.cpp

1339 void java_lang_Throwable::mark_on_stack(oop throwable) {
            . . .
1352       if (method == NULL) return;

  Would it be more safe to continue instead of return?
    1352       if (method == NULL) continue;



src/share/vm/classfile/backtrace.cpp

   63 void Backtrace::do_unloading() {

  I guess, this can be called at a safepoint only.
  Would it make sense to place a comment or an assert?


I see you already created a new unit test for this:
    java/lang/instrument/RedefineMethodInBacktrace.sh


Thanks,
Serguei






On 12/10/12 1:15 PM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>
> I have updated this webrev to include cleanups suggested by John Rose 
> for the anonymous class fix.   Please review before I add more to this!!
>
> open webrev at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coleenp/7174978_2/
> bug link at http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=7174978
>
> Thanks,
> Coleen
>
>
> On 12/05/2012 02:23 PM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>> Summary: Save the set of backtraces to use for on stack method 
>> walking for redefine classes.
>>
>> I also moved metadataOnStackMark class to it's own file because it's 
>> not only used for redefine classes.   Some metadata can be 
>> individually deallocated (eg. the Method* created in the relocator).
>>
>> open webrev at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coleenp/7174978/
>> bug link at http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=7174978
>>
>> Ran test that will be added to the jdk/tests in 
>> java/lang/instrument/RedefineMethodInBacktrace.sh (to be checked in 
>> separately).
>>
>> thanks,
>> Coleen
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-runtime-dev/attachments/20121211/fa69b9f0/attachment.html