On Thu, 9 Jul 2026 19:46:23 GMT, Patricio Chilano Mateo <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'm okay with expanding coverage in a follow-up RFE, but I think we need to >> document what our notion of safe/unsafe is more clearly. Simply avoiding >> specific crashes is a bit too whack-a-mole for me: we are just trying to fix >> a specific test case. > > How about expanding the comment to: > "Throwing from a `VirtualThread` method might leave the virtual thread in an > inconsistent state. The current implementation simply checks the top method, > which is enough to fix known issues where transition bits could be left in an > invalid state and trigger assertion failures. A more thorough approach would > be to walk the stack and check for `VirtualThread` methods further up > (excluding `VirtualThread.run` and `VirtualThread$VThreadContinuation$1.run` > which are always present).” That sounds good. Thanks ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/31759#discussion_r3555266637
