RFR: 8173941: SA does not work if executable is DSO

[David Holmes]

On 13/02/2017 1:02 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Sorry for my incorrect mail thread.
>
> For this issue, I already got two reviewers:
>
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/2017-February/020968.html
>
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/2017-February/020973.html

Yes. But please see my queries on the original thread.

Thanks,
David

>
> Yasumasa
>
>
> 2017-02-13 10:09 GMT+09:00 David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com
> <mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com>>:
>
>     Hi Yasumasa,
>
>     Please don't start new email threads on the same topic just to add a
>     cc. I've added to the existing thread and that is now missed on this
>     new one! It makes it hard to track comments, reviews and outstanding
>     issues. serviceability-dev was the correct mailing list for this
>     change, there was no need to also send to hotspot-dev.
>
>     On 11/02/2017 12:16 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>         On 10/02/17 14:15, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>
>             We need one or more reviewer. Could you review it?
>
>
>         We don't need another reviewer.  We need a sponsor to put it
>         through JPRT.
>
>
>     For hotspot changes we do prefer at least 2 reviews (though only 1
>     need be a Reviewer). The rules are not clearly documented anywhere
>     that I can see. Based on this:
>
>     http://openjdk.java.net/guide/changePlanning.html
>     <http://openjdk.java.net/guide/changePlanning.html>
>
>     "Changeset pushes before the Feature Complete require at least one
>     Reviewer; pushes after the Feature Complete require at least two
>     Reviewers. In either case, the more the merrier. Some teams may
>     require more Reviewers. Check with members of the Project."
>
>     we need two Reviewers after FC, but I don't think anyone has been
>     aware of and enforcing that!
>
>     David
>     -----
>
>
>         Andrew.
>
>