code review round 0 for JVM/TI version fix (6849968) and phase assertion (6648438)

[Daniel D. Daugherty]

David Holmes - Sun Microsystems wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> In jvmtiEnv.cpp:
>
>  410     return JVMTI_ERROR_NONE;
>  411   } if (use_version_1_0_semantics()) {
>
> I assume stylistically that was meant to be an "else if".

Yup. You won't believe how many times I read the webrev
before sending it out and still missed that... :-)


> Otherwise this seems sound to me.

Thanks for the very fast review!

Dan


>
> David
>
> Daniel D. Daugherty said the following on 12/12/09 08:52:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> I have fixes for the following two JVM/TI bugs ready to go:
>>
>> 6648438 4/4 src/share/vm/prims/jvmtiEnv.cpp:457
>>            assert(phase == JVMTI_PHASE_LIVE,"sanity check")
>> 6849968 3/3 JVMTI tests fails on jdk5.0 with hs14
>>
>> 6849968 fixes a problem where JVM/TI version 1.0 semantics
>> were not being used when that version was explicitly
>> requested. I fixed 6648438 because it happened to be in the
>> same place that I already had to tweak for 6849968. It also
>> gets rid of an annoying intermittent fastdebug failure.
>>
>> Here is the webrev URL:
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/batch-20091211-webrev/0/
>>
>> This webrev is relative to the OpenJDK6 version of the code.
>> Once approved, these fixes will be pushed to:
>>
>> - OpenJDK6 (HSX-14-??)
>> - JDK6-Update train (HSX-16-??)
>> - OpenJDK7 (HSX-17-??)
>>
>> Comments, questions and suggestions are always welcome!
>>
>> Dan