RE: 回复： [11u] RFR: Backport of JDK-8230400: Missing constant pool entry for a method in stacktrace

[Langer, Christoph]

Ok, I’ll run the patch through our testing. If no regressions occur, I’ll approve and push it later this week.

Cheers
Christoph

From: Denghui Dong <denghui.ddh at alibaba-inc.com>
Sent: Montag, 10. Februar 2020 01:38
To: Langer, Christoph <christoph.langer at sap.com>; jdk-updates-dev at openjdk.java.net
Subject: 回复： [11u] RFR: Backport of JDK-8230400: Missing constant pool entry for a method in stacktrace

Yes, please help me.




来自钉钉专属商务邮箱<(null)>
------------------------------------------------------------------
发件人：Langer, Christoph<christoph.langer at sap.com<mailto:christoph.langer at sap.com>>
日　期：2020年02月10日 06:04:41
收件人：Denghui Dong<denghui.ddh at alibaba-inc.com<mailto:denghui.ddh at alibaba-inc.com>>; jdk-updates-dev at openjdk.java.net<jdk-updates-dev at openjdk.java.net<mailto:jdk-updates-dev at openjdk.java.net%3cjdk-updates-dev at openjdk.java.net>>
主　题：RE: [11u] RFR: Backport of JDK-8230400: Missing constant pool entry for a method in stacktrace

Hi Denghui,

I looked at your backport and it seems correct to me.

If you want, I can run it through our testing and then sponsor it for you. Please let me know.

Best regards
Christoph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jdk-updates-dev <jdk-updates-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net<mailto:jdk-updates-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net>> On
> Behalf Of Denghui Dong
> Sent: Montag, 3. Februar 2020 13:49
> To: jdk-updates-dev at openjdk.java.net<mailto:jdk-updates-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> Subject: [11u] RFR: Backport of JDK-8230400: Missing constant pool entry for
> a method in stacktrace
>
> Hi team,
>   Please review this backport, original patch doesn't apply cleanly, because:
>   - some different code structures, such as the different name of JfrStump in
> jfrTypeSetUtils.hpp
>   - JDK-8209301 (JVM rename is_anonymous, host_klass to unsafe specific
> terminology ahead of Unsafe.defineAnonymousClass deprecation) has not
> been ported to 11u, and I think it's not necessary.
>
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8230400
> Original change: https://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/rev/31ec3e55fa3d
> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ddong/8230400/
>
> Thanks,
> Denghui Dong