RFR(xxs): 8144192: [windows] Enhancements to os::print_siginfo()

[David Holmes]

Looks fine.

I think this is small enough for a single review. So will push this as 
soon as I can. There's a big backlog of pushes to hs-rt at the moment.

Thanks,
David

On 1/12/2015 5:45 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> ok! Here my new webrev:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stuefe/webrevs/8144192-Enhancements-print_siginfo/webrev.01/webrev/
> I removed EXCEPTION_GUARD_PAGE from that case. We still print out all
> exception details numerically in the else branch, so no information are
> lost.
>
> Please also note that I prepared a sister change for review for posix
> platforms, 8144219, which moves the special CDS violation handling out
> of the os::print_siginfo(). I will fix any merging problems later for
> whatever change gets approved last.
>
> Kind Regards, Thomas
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 8:31 AM, David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com
> <mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 30/11/2015 4:52 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>
>         Hi David,
>
>         On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:12 AM, David Holmes
>         <david.holmes at oracle.com <mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com>
>         <mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com
>         <mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com>>> wrote:
>
>              Hi Thomas,
>
>              On 28/11/2015 1:31 AM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>
>                  Hi all,
>
>                  please take a look at these small enhancements to Windows'
>                  version of
>                  os::print_siginfo.
>
>                  Bug report:
>         https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8144192
>                  Webrev:
>         http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stuefe/webrevs/8144192-Enhancements-print_siginfo/webrev.00/webrev/
>
>
>              I couldn't find any documentation to confirm that
>              EXCEPTION_GUARD_PAGE has the same ExceptionInformation[0] as
>              EXCEPTION_ACCESS_VIOLATION and EXCEPTION_IN_PAGE_ERROR.
>
>
>         That is true. I found this in practice to be true, though. And
>         useful
>         enough to add.
>         But this was some years ago, and since it is undocumented, it
>         may not
>         work anymore. So, if you want, I can remove EXCEPTION_GUARD_PAGE
>         from
>         that case.
>
>
>     Please do. It avoids the potential for introducing anything unexpected.
>
>     Thanks,
>     David
>
>
>         Kind Regards, Thomas
>
>              Thanks,
>              David
>              -----
>
>                  Kind regards, Thomas
>
>
>