RFR 8243572: Multiple tests fail with assert(cld->klasses() != 0LL) failed: unexpected NULL for cld->klasses()

Lois Foltan lois.foltan at oracle.com
Wed Apr 29 19:05:32 UTC 2020


+1.  Code looks good and I agree on the approach of opening a new issue 
to sort out the 'hidden' terminology.
Lois

On 4/29/2020 1:24 PM, Markus Gronlund wrote:
> Hi Harold,
>
> Code changes looks good for fixing the problem, thank you for taking care of this.
>
> Markus
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harold Seigel
> Sent: den 29 april 2020 19:13
> To: hotspot-runtime-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: RFR 8243572: Multiple tests fail with assert(cld->klasses() != 0LL) failed: unexpected NULL for cld->klasses()
>
> Hi,
>
> The purpose of this change is fix the frequent CI tier 7 failures and it is being derailed by the 'hidden' terminology discussion. I'd like to push the current fix (which does not do any renaming of 'hidden') and open a new JFR RFE to deal with 'hidden' terminology.
>
> Does that sound okay?
>
> Thanks, Harold
>
> On 4/28/2020 11:59 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>> On 29/04/2020 9:37 am, Mandy Chung wrote:
>>> OK.  I can go with "weak hidden" in JFR description as it's informal.
>> People will go back to the Hidden Classes JEP to try and discern what
>> a "weak hidden" class is. It doesn't make sense to me reject use of
>> "weak hidden" in the core functionality (ie the JEP) and yet allow
>> "informal" use of "weak hidden" elsewhere - it will just raise more
>> questions than it answers IMO.
>>
>> David
>>
>>> Mandy
>>>
>>> On 4/28/20 2:59 PM, Markus Gronlund wrote:
>>>>  “Hidden” genera (default) “Strong Hidden” species?
>>>>
>>> Weak is the default.
>>>
>>>> If need to make explicit, “Weak Hidden” vs “Strong Hidden”
>>>>
>>>> “Weak” as a term induces the, historically intuitive, idea of
>>>> not-strong. “Regular” and “Normal” are too general for this concept,
>>>> especially as Hidden Classes are introduced to be an alternative to
>>>>   (historically) “Regular” and “Normal” classes.
>>>>
>>>> 2 cents
>>>>
>>>> Markus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>>> On 28 Apr 2020, at 23:12, Mandy Chung <mandy.chung at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/28/20 1:13 PM, John Rose wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 28, 2020, at 1:10 PM, Mandy Chung <mandy.chung at oracle.com
>>>>>> <mailto:mandy.chung at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>> "non-strong" is the best term I can come up with.
>>>>>> If strong is the non-default choice, then any of “regular”,
>>>>>> “normal”, or “weak” would be OK in my book.  I know “weak” is no
>>>>>> longer a technical term, but as an informal opposite to “strong”
>>>>>> it would work, now.
>>>>>>
>>>>> "regular" or "normal" is a good one.   I didn't suggest that
>>>>> because we use "normal class" to refer to non-hidden class. For
>>>>> this specific discussion about JFR user-visible description,
>>>>> "regular/normal hidden classes" is probably better.
>>>>>
>>>>>> (This is a big sign of progress:  There’s little remaining to
>>>>>> discuss except bike shed colors!)
>>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mandy



More information about the hotspot-runtime-dev mailing list