On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 04:58:49 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas wrote:
>> The proposal is to encapsulate the nmethod mark for deoptimization logic in
>> one place and only allow access to the `mark_for_deoptimization` from a
>> closure object:
>> ```C++
>> class DeoptimizationMarkerClosure : StackObj {
>
On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 20:42:59 GMT, Erik Österlund wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with three
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Add assertions
>> - Fix marked logic
>> - Erik refactorings
>
> Also, in DeoptimizationContext::deopt_co
On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 20:42:59 GMT, Erik Österlund wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with three
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Add assertions
>> - Fix marked logic
>> - Erik refactorings
>
> Also, in DeoptimizationContext::deopt_co
On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 04:58:49 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas wrote:
>> The proposal is to encapsulate the nmethod mark for deoptimization logic in
>> one place and only allow access to the `mark_for_deoptimization` from a
>> closure object:
>> ```C++
>> class DeoptimizationMarkerClosure : StackObj {
>
On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 04:58:49 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas wrote:
>> The proposal is to encapsulate the nmethod mark for deoptimization logic in
>> one place and only allow access to the `mark_for_deoptimization` from a
>> closure object:
>> ```C++
>> class DeoptimizationMarkerClosure : StackObj {
>
On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 04:58:49 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas wrote:
>> The proposal is to encapsulate the nmethod mark for deoptimization logic in
>> one place and only allow access to the `mark_for_deoptimization` from a
>> closure object:
>> ```C++
>> class DeoptimizationMarkerClosure : StackObj {
>
On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 04:58:49 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas wrote:
>> The proposal is to encapsulate the nmethod mark for deoptimization logic in
>> one place and only allow access to the `mark_for_deoptimization` from a
>> closure object:
>> ```C++
>> class DeoptimizationMarkerClosure : StackObj {
>
On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 04:58:49 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas wrote:
>> The proposal is to encapsulate the nmethod mark for deoptimization logic in
>> one place and only allow access to the `mark_for_deoptimization` from a
>> closure object:
>> ```C++
>> class DeoptimizationMarkerClosure : StackObj {
>
On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 04:58:49 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas wrote:
>> The proposal is to encapsulate the nmethod mark for deoptimization logic in
>> one place and only allow access to the `mark_for_deoptimization` from a
>> closure object:
>> ```C++
>> class DeoptimizationMarkerClosure : StackObj {
>
> The proposal is to encapsulate the nmethod mark for deoptimization logic in
> one place and only allow access to the `mark_for_deoptimization` from a
> closure object:
> ```C++
> class DeoptimizationMarkerClosure : StackObj {
> public:
> virtual void marker_do(Deoptimization::MarkFn mark_fn)
10 matches
Mail list logo
