RFR: 6617: Make return value its own element
Jessye Coleman-Shapiro
github.com+29706926+jessyec-s at openjdk.java.net
Thu Dec 5 16:49:11 UTC 2019
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 16:01:42 GMT, Marcus Hirt <hirt at openjdk.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 15:32:23 GMT, Jessye Coleman-Shapiro <github.com+29706926+jessyec-s at openjdk.org> wrote:
>
>> This patch addresses [JMC-6617](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JMC-6617): Better probe format for return values.
>>
>> Currently method return values in the agent are described using a parameter element with an index of -1. This patch makes a designated returnvalue element that can be used for return values.
>>
>> ----------------
>>
>> Commits:
>> - 368cc573: Make return value its own element
>>
>> Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jmc/pull/6/files
>> Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/jmc/6/webrev.00
>> Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JMC-6617
>> Stats: 272 lines in 11 files changed: 200 ins; 25 del; 47 mod
>> Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jmc/pull/6.diff
>> Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jmc pull/6/head:pull/6
>
> core/org.openjdk.jmc.agent/src/main/java/org/openjdk/jmc/agent/jfr/impl/JFREventClassGenerator.java line 120:
>
>> 119:
>> 120: private static void createField(ClassWriter cw, JFRTransformDescriptor td, ReturnValue returnValue, Type type) {
>> 121: if (!td.isAllowedFieldType(type)) {
>
> Why explicitly adding returnValue to the parameters? Isn't the return value part of the transform descriptor?
yes you are correct - I have fixed this in https://github.com/openjdk/jmc/pull/6/commits/92964d31876537cac3dcd7f84fd0173957d34a7f
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jmc/pull/6
More information about the jmc-dev
mailing list