RFR 8134995(M): [REDO] GC: implement ranges (optionally constraints) for those flags that have them missing (original) (raw)
Kim Barrett kim.barrett at oracle.com
Tue Oct 6 00:46:50 UTC 2015
- Previous message: RFR 8134995(M): [REDO] GC: implement ranges (optionally constraints) for those flags that have them missing
- Next message: RFR 8134995(M): [REDO] GC: implement ranges (optionally constraints) for those flags that have them missing
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Oct 5, 2015, at 5:45 PM, sangheon.kim <sangheon.kim at oracle.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2015 02:06 PM, Kim Barrett wrote: On Oct 5, 2015, at 4:35 PM, sangheon.kim <sangheon.kim at oracle.com> wrote: Here's next webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sangheki/8134995/webrev.04 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sangheki/8134995/webrev.04to03
I think there is still at least a potential for problems around the use of FLAG_IS_CMDLINE in the constraint functions, but I don’t see an actual problem at this time. Another issue besides those I’ve mentioned before is that if the constraint is only active when FLAG_IS_CMDLINE and no command line option was given, but the option is manageable and later set through that interface, I think the constraint won’t check the new value being provided. However, none of the options with new constraint functions using FLAG_IS_CMDLINE are manageable, so I think there’s no immediate problem on that score. But there should be an RFE to follow up in this area.
So looks good to me.
- Previous message: RFR 8134995(M): [REDO] GC: implement ranges (optionally constraints) for those flags that have them missing
- Next message: RFR 8134995(M): [REDO] GC: implement ranges (optionally constraints) for those flags that have them missing
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]