On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 15:46:10 GMT, Jaroslav Bachorik
wrote:
>> Sadly, this is not async-profiler specific. The same issue can be observed
>> by JVMTI only code grabbing a stacktrace.
>> What do you mean exactly by 'conditional'? Introducing a new JVM flag or
>> something else?
>
> Ok, I see now
On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 15:19:43 GMT, Jaroslav Bachorik
wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/oops/instanceKlass.cpp line 541:
>>
>>> 539: assert (!method->on_stack(), "shouldn't be called with methods
>>> on stack");
>>> 540: // Do the pointer maintenance before releasing the metadata
>>> 541:
On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 14:20:48 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> Jaroslav Bachorik has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Add exhaustive check for method holder availability (1)
>
> src/hotspot/share/oops/instanceKlass.cpp line 541:
>
On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 22:08:49 GMT, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>> Jaroslav Bachorik has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Add exhaustive check for method holder availability (1)
>
> src/hotspot/share/classfile/classFileParser.cpp l
On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 13:37:41 GMT, Jaroslav Bachorik
wrote:
>> Please, review this fix for a corner case handling of `jmethodID` values.
>>
>> The issue is related to the interplay between `jmethodID` values and method
>> redefinitions. Each `jmethodID` value is effectively a pointer to a `Meth
> Please, review this fix for a corner case handling of `jmethodID` values.
>
> The issue is related to the interplay between `jmethodID` values and method
> redefinitions. Each `jmethodID` value is effectively a pointer to a `Method`
> instance. Once that method gets redefined, the `jmethodID`
