RFR 8243572: Multiple tests fail with assert(cld->klasses() != 0LL) failed: unexpected NULL for cld->klasses()

[Mandy Chung]

OK.  I can go with "weak hidden" in JFR description as it's informal.

Mandy

On 4/28/20 2:59 PM, Markus Gronlund wrote:
>  “Hidden” genera (default) “Strong Hidden” species?
>

Weak is the default.

> If need to make explicit, “Weak Hidden” vs “Strong Hidden”
>
> “Weak” as a term induces the, historically intuitive, idea of 
> not-strong. “Regular” and “Normal” are too general for this concept, 
> especially as Hidden Classes are introduced to be an alternative to 
>  (historically) “Regular” and “Normal” classes.
>
> 2 cents
>
> Markus
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 28 Apr 2020, at 23:12, Mandy Chung <mandy.chung at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> On 4/28/20 1:13 PM, John Rose wrote:
>>> On Apr 28, 2020, at 1:10 PM, Mandy Chung <mandy.chung at oracle.com 
>>> <mailto:mandy.chung at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "non-strong" is the best term I can come up with.
>>>
>>> If strong is the non-default choice, then any of “regular”,
>>> “normal”, or “weak” would be OK in my book.  I know
>>> “weak” is no longer a technical term, but as an informal
>>> opposite to “strong” it would work, now.
>>>
>>
>> "regular" or "normal" is a good one.   I didn't suggest that because 
>> we use "normal class" to refer to non-hidden class.  For this 
>> specific discussion about JFR user-visible description, 
>> "regular/normal hidden classes" is probably better.
>>
>>> (This is a big sign of progress:  There’s little remaining to
>>> discuss except bike shed colors!)
>>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> Mandy