hang when using -XX:-UseCompilerSafepoints

[Coleen Phillimore]

On 11/13/14, 8:53 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
> > Happy to let others weigh in.
>
> Please use 8064749 to remove the flag; David H is correct that all the
> right info is there.

Agreed.  There is no point in having an experimental flag that is broken 
also.

This is not worth backporting to 8u.

Coleen
>
> Dan
>
>
> On 11/13/14 2:12 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>> On 13/11/2014 6:55 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>>> On 13.11.2014 11:47, David Holmes wrote:
>>>> On 13/11/2014 5:43 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>>>>> On 13.11.2014 08:40, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> There is some history in JDK-4974572 (which is non-public I'm 
>>>>>> afraid).
>>>>>> To all intents and purposes the flag at that point was used to 
>>>>>> enable
>>>>>> testing of workarounds if problems were suspected in the "new"
>>>>>> safepointing code. I think it has outlived its usefulness by a 
>>>>>> few major
>>>>>> releases so I'm happy to see it go.
>>>>>
>>>>> Filed:
>>>>>     https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8064777
>>>>
>>>> You actually filed 8064776 first :)
>>>
>>> O_o. The submit timestamps are the same. JIRA is funky today, huh.
>>>
>>>> But neither is needed as removal can be the solution of 8064749.
>>>
>>> I thought we are better off tracking this separately, and then close
>>> all/any pending bugs about UseCompilerSafepoints as WNF citing 8064776.
>>> Still want to do this in 8064749?
>>
>> It is what I did in 8062307 for the TraceThreadEvents flag. 8064749 
>> contains all the pertinent comments.
>>
>>> Also, I wonder if we want to demote the flag to experimental in 8u. 
>>> This
>>> does not sound like a backport of 8064749 at all, but rather a separate
>>> change.
>>
>> Any change requires CCC. I don't see any point in making the flag 
>> experimental as it doesn't really provide any "experimentation".
>>
>> Happy to let others weigh in.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>>> -Aleksey.
>>>
>