On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 05:47:14 GMT, David Holmes <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Jaroslav Bachorik has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Reinstate mistakenly deleted comment
>
> This has gotten a lot more complicated. All I was suggesting was if this:
>
> if (with_method_holders) {
> method->clear_jmethod_id();
> }
>
> could be changed to
>
> if (method->method_holder() == nullptr) {
> method->clear_jmethod_id();
> }
>
> Now I'm not at all sure what you are doing.
> @dholmes-ora Unfortunately, I can not just do `method->method_holder() ==
> nullptr` as `method_holder()` is expanding to
> `Method::constants()->pool_holder()` and `Method::constants()` is expanding
> to `Method::constMethod()->constants()`. This can cause SIGSEGV if either
> `Method::_constMethod` or `ConstMethod::_constants` is NULL.
I'm getting a strange sense of deja-vu here. This API is flawed if you cannot
even ask for the method holder without some intervening value causing a SEGV.
I've lost sight of the big picture here in terms of the lifecycle of the Method
we are querying, the methodID we may be clearing and the existence or not of a
method_holder().
-------------
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16662#issuecomment-1826190641
