Round #2: RFR: 8049365 - Update JDI and JDWP for modules

[serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com]

On 1/22/16 00:35, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 22/01/2016 03:34, serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com wrote:
>>
>> I saw the discussion but have no strong opinion yet.
>> Changing to JVMTI_VERSION_9 will make it more consistent though.
> Thanks. We can always revert it if it turns out that there is a good 
> reason not to move it to 9 and keep it in sync with the Java SE 
> version. Capturing this in JEP 223 would be good but may be a bit 
> beyond the original scope.

Made this change. It is trivial.

>
>
>>
>> I could easily fix it now but it is Ok to file a separate bug.
> I created JDK-8147943 yesterday to track it and also linked it to 
> JDK-8063154, the issue to remove jvmti.h from the jdk repo and use the 
> generated header.
>
> Sorting out these issues it not core to what we are doing here so I 
> suggest just bringing over the changes from the generated jvmti.h to 
> the checked in jvmti.h. That will ensure that the jvmti.h in the JDK 
> image has the right copyright header.

Ok, thanks!
I do not touch this part now.

>
>>
>>
>> Will provide an update in the next review round.
> Thanks and assuming we are down to minor issues then I think we should 
> get the patches into jake and iterate on them as needed. Also I think 
> of this patch as just a first step, there will be more once the IDEs 
> start to add explore debugging code in modules.

Agreed.
I discovered that some tweaks in the SA-JDI are necessary to make it 
compiled.
The most of your minor comments are also resolved in new version.
I'll send new webrevs shortly.


Thanks,
Serguei

>
> -Alan.