[11u] RFC 8231405: [Shenandoah] guarantee(d != NULL) failed: Null dominator info

[Andrew John Hughes]

On 30/09/2019 20:25, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> On 9/30/19 9:22 PM, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>> The second option, b, makes sense to me. I don't really follow the con
>> for that; there are plenty of instances where Shenandoah changes have
>> gone in between merges. I think a bit of noise on a webrev is
>> outweighted by the testing and visibility it would get in the public repos.
> 
> Agreed. The "con" was mostly about not having a clear "tag" that CPU forest is based on, but I guess
> that is a minor nuisance at this juncture, as CPU forests are probably tested at their "tip" anyway.
> Which would include public fixes after we pull them in.
> 
>> As to the viability of the fix itself, it's Shenandoah-only code that it
>> affects, so I'll leave that call up to you.
> Right. We are going to have another small fix tomorrow, and then we would ask to pull new sh/jdk11
> to the CPU forest, OK?
> 

Sounds good.

Thanks,
-- 
Andrew :)

Senior Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net)
Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04  C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222
https://keybase.io/gnu_andrew