Great - where are those tests? Trying to learn my way around... /Staffan
On 14 jun 2012, at 11:03, Poonam Bajaj wrote: > Thanks Staffan. > > We do have regression tests covering jstack -m testing. > > regards, > Poonam > > On 6/14/2012 2:02 PM, Staffan Larsen wrote: >> >> Poonam, >> >> The fix looks good. >> >> It's not clear to me if there is a good regression test for this already - >> if not, I'd really like to see one along with the fix. >> >> Thanks, >> /Staffan >> >> On 14 jun 2012, at 06:10, Poonam Bajaj wrote: >> >>> Could I get one more review for this fix, please. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Poonam >>> >>> On 6/13/2012 7:57 AM, David Holmes wrote: >>>> >>>> On 13/06/2012 12:25 PM, Poonam Bajaj wrote: >>>>> Hi David, >>>>> >>>>> On 6/13/2012 7:35 AM, David Holmes wrote: >>>>>> Hi Poonam, >>>>>> >>>>>> It seems to me that rather than passing the ThreadProxy through to >>>>>> f.sender the frame, which has to be a frame of some thread, should >>>>>> already know what that thread is and so be able to access it directly. >>>>>> >>>>>> In other words: shouldn't each CFrame maintain a reference to the >>>>>> thread it corresponds to? >>>>> >>>>> Yes, it would have made more sense to have a reference of ThreadProxy in >>>>> the Frame classes. But that requires restructuring of lot more code. All >>>>> the Debugger classes (e.g. >>>>> agent/src/share/classes/sun/jvm/hotspot/debugger/linux/LinuxCDebugger.java) >>>>> >>>>> also need to be touched that have the topFrameForThread() where we >>>>> create the first frame for the thread. >>>> >>>> Oh I see. I was hoping it would actually lead to fewer code changes. It >>>> seems risky to pass in a thread reference when there is only ever one >>>> valid thread reference that can be passed - but no way to verify that you >>>> actually pass the correct one. >>>> >>>>> This fix was mainly for 6uxx and it didn't seem reasonable to me to >>>>> restructure and touch too many classes for this simple fix. >>>> >>>> Ok. >>>> >>>> David >>>> ----- >>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Poonam >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> David >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12/06/2012 11:05 PM, Poonam Bajaj wrote: >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please review this fix for bug 6310967 >>>>>>> <http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6310967>. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 6310967 <http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6310967>: >>>>>>> SA: jstack -m produce failures in output >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~poonam/6310967/webrev.00/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Problem: jstack -m fails with UnalignedAddressException.The problem is >>>>>>> that while finding the caller frame of a frame in sender() method, we >>>>>>> don't check the validity of the frame pointer (rbp / ebp). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> These changes add a simple check that the frame pointer(rbp) should be >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> valid pointer on the stack by making sure that it is not less than the >>>>>>> stack >>>>>>> pointer(rsp). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Poonam >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >> > >
