On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 16:30:56 GMT, Simon Tooke <sto...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> But (here and in other places) raw-printing the unknown constant may not be >> the best way. Chances are this code is executed rarely and most people will >> just be perplexed at the weird printouts. >> >> We could assert here: After all, we expect to handle all possible values; if >> we see an unknown constant, then we either have a bug in the code and what >> we read here is no protection value, or Microsoft added new constants. In >> both cases, a code fix is needed. Asserts would fire up in automatic >> regression tests. >> >> The alternative is to print an '?'. And possibly scan for that in regression >> tests too. >> >> I leave this decision up to you. > > I now handle less cases but will assert() if unimplemented bits are > encountered. I have currently only implemented this for protection bits, but > I'm still thinking what's best and intent to handle unknown cases identically > for the other two functions. The other two functions will now throw a fatal() if they don't understand the data they've been given. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20597#discussion_r1733414499
