RFR(S) 8199924: Solaris: Correctly enqueue null arguments of attach operations

[Langer, Christoph]

Hi Dan,

that is, you mean the C-code? My original change?

Best regards
Christoph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel D. Daugherty [mailto:daniel.daugherty at oracle.com]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 21. März 2018 14:59
> To: Langer, Christoph <christoph.langer at sap.com>; David Holmes
> <david.holmes at oracle.com>; serviceability-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: RFR(S) 8199924: Solaris: Correctly enqueue null arguments of
> attach operations
> 
> Hmmm... shouldn't the inconsistency in the Solaris backend also be
> addressed?
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> On 3/21/18 8:45 AM, Langer, Christoph wrote:
> > Hi David,
> >
> > thanks for looking at this. I currently have no emotions whether to fix it in C
> or in Java - I'll check it out...
> >
> > Best regards
> > Christoph
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: David Holmes [mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com]
> >> Sent: Mittwoch, 21. März 2018 10:20
> >> To: Langer, Christoph <christoph.langer at sap.com>; serviceability-
> >> dev at openjdk.java.net
> >> Subject: Re: RFR(S) 8199924: Solaris: Correctly enqueue null arguments of
> >> attach operations
> >>
> >> Hi Christoph,
> >>
> >> On 21/03/2018 6:10 PM, Langer, Christoph wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> may I please ask for reviews of the following small fix.
> >>>
> >>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~clanger/webrevs/8199924.0/
> >>>
> >>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8199924
> >>>
> >>> If one passes null arguments to the varargs of attach operations, they
> >>> get swallowed on Solaris and following arguments will shift to lower
> >>> positions.
> >>>
> >>> Other platform implementations handle this correctly, for instance
> >>> linux:
> >>>
> >>
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/file/f6ad4d73c834/src/jdk.attach/linux/cl
> >> asses/sun/tools/attach/VirtualMachineImpl.java#l178
> >>
> >> Wouldn't it be simpler to just handle this at the Java level and
> >> substitute "" for null in the args array? We're only looking at a
> >> maximum of three possible entries.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> David
> >>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> Christoph
> >>>