trace_bytecode

[Coleen Phillimore]

Since there's no harm to this extra #ifndef PRODUCT and it's been fixed 
in 9, the jdk8 specific bug would be closed as WNF, so I don't think 
there's a point to filing it.

Coleen


On 6/4/16 6:02 PM, yumin qi wrote:
> I mean the inside 'ifndef PRODUCT' is not needed.
>
> On Saturday, June 4, 2016, David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Yumin,
>>
>> On 5/06/2016 6:12 AM, yumin qi wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>    In JDK8/hotspot: sharedRuntime.cpp, there is an embedded macro checking:
>>>
>>> #ifndef PRODUCT
>>>
>>> JRT_ENTRY(intptr_t, SharedRuntime::trace_bytecode(JavaThread* thread,
>>> intptr_t preserve_this_value, intptr_t tos, intptr_t tos2))
>>>
>>>    const frame f = thread->last_frame();
>>>
>>>    assert(f.is_interpreted_frame(), "must be an interpreted frame");
>>>
>>> #ifndef PRODUCT
>>>
>>>    methodHandle mh(THREAD, f.interpreter_frame_method());
>>>
>>>    BytecodeTracer::trace(mh, f.interpreter_frame_bcp(), tos, tos2);
>>>
>>> #endif // !PRODUCT
>>>
>>>    return preserve_this_value;
>>>
>>> JRT_END
>>>
>>> #endif // !PRODUCT
>>>
>>> It looks not necessary --- JDK9 has changed.
>>>
>> Why do you think this is unnecessary? In 9 it has moved to
>> interpreterRuntime.cpp
>>
>> David
>> -----
>>
>> I could not file bug (still could not logon to bugjira), could someone file
>>> a bug for it?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Yumin
>>>
>>>