RFR(S): 8142341: GC: current flags need ranges to be implemented
tom.benson at oracle.com
Fri Dec 4 20:12:15 UTC 2015
On 12/4/2015 3:01 PM, sangheon.kim wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> On 12/04/2015 11:17 AM, Tom Benson wrote:
>> Hi Sangheon,
>> I'm also also OK with the change, but I found the wording of this
>> comment a little confusing, because 'value' is also the name of the
>> argument which is the HeapBaseMinAddress being checked:
>> 554 // But below check is okay as the wrong value means bigger
>> than the value should be.
>> How about something like: If an overflow happened in
>> Arguments::set_heap_size(), MaxHeapSize will have too large a value.
>> Check for this by ensuring that MaxHeapSize plus the requested min
>> base address still fit within max_uintx.
> Your suggestion seems much cleaner. I will use this!
> Do you need a new webrev for this?
No, I'm OK with it. (Assuming you're also going to remove the existing
553. 8^) )
More information about the hotspot-dev