RFR(XS): 8195094: Fix type-O in "8159422: Very high Concurrent Mark mark stack contention"

[Lindenmaier, Goetz]

Thomas, David, 

Thanks for reviewing!
I added reviewers and fixed the patch in the webrev (it didn't contain
the change information.)  My colleague Arno catched this.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~goetz/wr18/8195094-typeO/webrev.02/

Also, I added more text to the bug.

Could one of you please sponsor?

Yep, I'm also quite disappointed of the compilers not catching this.
Especially as really a broad range of compilers are used in this 
project ...

Thanks,
  Goetz.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Holmes [mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 11:22 PM
To: Thomas Schatzl <thomas.schatzl at oracle.com>; Lindenmaier, Goetz <goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com>; hotspot-runtime-dev at openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: RFR(XS): 8195094: Fix type-O in "8159422: Very high Concurrent Mark mark stack contention"

+1 on the fix and on filling in the bug report please!

I'm always bemused when things like this can happen. We get the most 
pedantic warnings from compilers these days, yet something as blatantly 
wrong as this is accepted without question. :(

Thanks,
David

On 16/01/2018 1:45 AM, Thomas Schatzl wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, 2018-01-15 at 08:08 +0000, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Could I please get a review for this tiny fix? I please need a
>> sponsor, too.
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~goetz/wr18/8195094-typeO/webrev.01/
>>
>> The string is interpreted as a bool and the wrong implementation of
>> the function is called.
>> This should go to 10, please.
> 
>    looks good to me, nice catch.
> 
> No opposition from me to push it into 10 (still open until 18th for
> P3). It seems to be a really small and safe patch that apparently fixes
> a significant problem - it would be nice to be a little more specific
> in the CR though :)
> 
> Thanks,
>    Thomas
>