JVM/TI code review request (XS and M) (7182152) (original) (raw)

Daniel D. Daugherty daniel.daugherty at oracle.com
Mon Feb 4 16:14:04 PST 2013

Thanks!

Dan

On 2/4/13 4:17 PM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:

Comment looks good! Thanks! Coleen On 2/4/2013 5:09 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote: On 2/4/13 2:48 PM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:

Also the file,

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8007420-webrev/0-jdk8-tl/test/java/lang/instrument/RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl1.java.html

Is exactly the same as the file RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl.java Isn't one supposed to be derived from Target1 rather than Target or different in some way? The "1" stuffis just for version naming purposes. The actual class name has to be the same between Foo.java and Foo1.java. In this particular bug's case, we only needed to redefine RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl with an EMCP version to tickle the bug. That's why there are no differences between RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl.java and RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl1.java. Good eyes though. Can you put a comment about why there are no differences but it's a different file? Yes. How about the following? $ diff test/java/lang/instrument/RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl.java{.cr0,} 23a24,27 > // Reproducing this bug only requires an EMCP version of the > // RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl class so > // RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl.java and > // RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl1.java are identical. $ diff test/java/lang/instrument/RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl1.java{.cr0,} 23a24,27 > // Reproducing this bug only requires an EMCP version of the > // RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl class so > // RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl.java and > // RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl1.java are identical. so both files are still identical, but now there is an explanation. Dan

More information about the serviceability-dev mailing list