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

[Harold Seigel]

Thanks Lois!

Harold

On 4/29/2020 3:05 PM, Lois Foltan wrote:
> +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
>