Code review request: NMT: assertion failed: assert(rec->addr() + rec->size() <= cur->base()) failed: Can not overlap in memSnapshot.cpp (original) (raw)
Zhengyu Gu zhengyu.gu at oracle.com
Fri Nov 2 10:21:08 PDT 2012
- Previous message: Request for Reviews(M): 7092905: C2: Keep track of the number of dead nodes
- Next message: Code review request: NMT: assertion failed: assert(rec->addr() + rec->size() <= cur->base()) failed: Can not overlap in memSnapshot.cpp
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Updated the webrev based on David's comment. Overlapping stacks is tracked by 8001743.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~zgu/8001591/webrev.01/
Thanks,
-Zhengyu
On 10/31/2012 9:32 PM, David Holmes wrote:
On 1/11/2012 2:12 AM, Zhengyu Gu wrote:
NMT did not allow overlapped commit on memory regions, which is incorrect. Committing overlapped memory regions should be allowed, as long as the regions are within a reserved region. So the overlapping stacks that were detected is perfectly valid?
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~zgu/8001591/webrev.00/ The renaming from containsxx to containxx is not correct. "contains" is the correct form to use, and "overlaps" rather than "overlap". Why the variable rename in VMMemPointerIterator::addreservedregion? Given it is initialized from current() then 'cur' seems quite acceptable. Otherwise maybe it is current() that has the wrong name? The renaming generates a lot of noise in the webrev - it is hard to see the actual substantive changes that were made. Cheers, David Thanks, -Zhengyu
- Previous message: Request for Reviews(M): 7092905: C2: Keep track of the number of dead nodes
- Next message: Code review request: NMT: assertion failed: assert(rec->addr() + rec->size() <= cur->base()) failed: Can not overlap in memSnapshot.cpp
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]