RFR: 8068396: Rename assert() to vmassert()

Kim Barrett kim.barrett at oracle.com
Thu Jan 8 23:57:59 UTC 2015

On Jan 7, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Kim Barrett <kim.barrett at oracle.com> wrote:
> Erik Helin pointed out to me that the change to the assertion text
> from "assert(...)" to "vmassert(...)" might break some existing JBS
> RULE comments for matching known failures.
> I'll look at how bad this really is, but it seems likely that the
> thing to do is to revert the message text back to using "assert"
> rather than "vmassert".

I've reverted the message string back to saying "assert(" rather than
"vmassert(".  I'm working on getting an aurora test with the
"vmassert(" string to see how bad that change might be, but I'm not
sure I've done that properly yet.  Regardless, the argument for
reverting that string change seems pretty compelling.

I looked at what will happen with [vm]assert_status, which was
simplified to just expand into a vmassert rather than duplicating the
implementation of that macro.  The assert_status predicate expression
gets included in the message string in the same way under the new as
the old, so with vmassert message string reversion there won't be any
change here either.

I looked at assert_if_no_error similarly; it used to just expand into
assert and now expands into vmassert, so again no change in the

For testing, I did builds with and without these changes, with
temporary code inserted to always fail an assertion, and verified that
the relevant message texts were identical.

CR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8068396
New webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kbarrett/8068396/webrev.02
Incremental webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kbarrett/8068396/webrev.02.incr

The new webrev contains copyright updates, since its a new year.  I
left the copyright updates out of the incremental webrev.

More information about the hotspot-dev mailing list