Details
-
Enhancement
-
Resolution: Fixed
-
P5
-
17
-
b23
-
generic
-
generic
Backports
Issue | Fix Version | Assignee | Priority | Status | Resolution | Resolved In Build |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
JDK-8310695 | 11.0.21-oracle | Kavya K S | P5 | Resolved | Fixed | b01 |
JDK-8311252 | 11.0.21 | Goetz Lindenmaier | P5 | Resolved | Fixed | b01 |
Description
1. WB_IsJVMTIIncluded function uses runtime check. Most likely compiler elides the check, but for consistency it would be better to implements the function the same way as others:
WB_ENTRY(jboolean, WB_IsJVMTIIncluded(JNIEnv* env, jobject wb))
#if INCLUDE_JVMTI
return JNI_TRUE;
#else
return JNI_FALSE;
#endif
WB_END
2. function names are inconsistent:
isCDSIncludedInVmBuild / WB_IsCDSIncludedInVmBuild
isJFRIncludedInVmBuild / WB_IsJFRIncludedInVmBuild
isC2OrJVMCIIncludedInVmBuild / WB_isC2OrJVMCIIncludedInVmBuild
isJVMTIIncluded / WB_IsJVMTIIncluded
As per David suggestion the functions don't need to have "InVmBuild" in the name as it's redundant/unnecessary
WB_ENTRY(jboolean, WB_IsJVMTIIncluded(JNIEnv* env, jobject wb))
#if INCLUDE_JVMTI
return JNI_TRUE;
#else
return JNI_FALSE;
#endif
WB_END
2. function names are inconsistent:
isCDSIncludedInVmBuild / WB_IsCDSIncludedInVmBuild
isJFRIncludedInVmBuild / WB_IsJFRIncludedInVmBuild
isC2OrJVMCIIncludedInVmBuild / WB_isC2OrJVMCIIncludedInVmBuild
isJVMTIIncluded / WB_IsJVMTIIncluded
As per David suggestion the functions don't need to have "InVmBuild" in the name as it's redundant/unnecessary
Attachments
Issue Links
- backported by
-
JDK-8310695 Fix inconsistencies in hotspot whitebox
- Resolved
-
JDK-8311252 Fix inconsistencies in hotspot whitebox
- Resolved
- links to
-
Commit openjdk/jdk11u-dev/da6c1c78
-
Commit openjdk/jdk/ab17be28
-
Review openjdk/jdk11u-dev/2006
-
Review openjdk/jdk/3924
(1 links to)