On Sat, 7 Mar 2026 04:02:30 GMT, Yasumasa Suenaga <[email protected]> wrote:
>> src/jdk.hotspot.agent/share/classes/sun/jvm/hotspot/runtime/Continuation.java
>> line 41:
>>
>>> 39: public static boolean isSPInContinuation(ContinuationEntry entry,
>>> Address sp) {
>>> 40: return entry.getEntrySP().greaterThan(sp);
>>> 41: }
>>
>> This could be made private.
>
> It is public member in HotSpot, so I aligned with it. However it does not
> need to be public in SA.
> Should we it to be private?
It's ok to keep public then.
>> src/jdk.hotspot.agent/share/classes/sun/jvm/hotspot/runtime/Continuation.java
>> line 43:
>>
>>> 41: }
>>> 42:
>>> 43: public static ContinuationEntry
>>> getContinuationEntryForSP(JavaThread thread, Address sp) {
>>
>> This also could be made private.
>
> It is public member in HotSpot, so I aligned with it. However it does not
> need to be public in SA.
> Should we it to be private?
It's ok to keep public then.
>> src/jdk.hotspot.agent/share/classes/sun/jvm/hotspot/runtime/amd64/AMD64Frame.java
>> line 282:
>>
>>> 280: // _chunk =
>>> stackChunkHandle(Thread::current()->handle_area()->allocate_null_handle(),
>>> true /* dummy */);
>>> 281: // }
>>> 282:
>>
>> I don't understand how this comment is relevant to the code below. Why is
>> this here?
>
> SA should follow HotSpot implementation, so that code should be included
> basically. However it is not needed in this case. Thus I left comment the
> reason.
I still don't follow. Are you saying that map->in_cont() will always return
true so you don't need the walk_cont related code?
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/30107#discussion_r2907199535
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/30107#discussion_r2907198774
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/30107#discussion_r2907182618
