On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 08:57:34 GMT, Alan Bateman <al...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> It was decided in a local discussion with Chris and Alan to update the JVMTI >> spec to make descriptions/clarifications of some `JVMTI_ERROR_OPAQUE_FRAME` >> cases more consistent. >> This impacts the following JVMTI functions: >> - `PopFrame` >> - `NotifyFramePop` >> - `ForceEarlyReturn<Type>` >> >> A related CSR is going to be filed for this spec update. >> >> Testing: >> - it is N/A in general but mach5 tiers 1-3 will be run to be completely safe > > src/hotspot/share/prims/jvmti.xml line 3082: > >> 3080: <error id="JVMTI_ERROR_OPAQUE_FRAME"> >> 3081: The implementation is unable to provide this functionality >> on this frame >> 3082: (e.g. the frame at <code>depth</code> is executing a native >> method). > > It might be better to say "unable to generate a FramePop event for the frame" > rather than "unable to provide this functionality on this frame". Good suggestion, thanks. `NotifyFramePop` does not generate the `FramePop` events by itself it is just sets or enables events. Then should we say this way: "unable to set a `FramePop` event for the frame" ? ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26111#discussion_r2183102777
