Wed, 18 Aug 2010 17:44:33 -0400 Merge
johnc [Wed, 18 Aug 2010 17:44:33 -0400] rev 6264
Merge
Wed, 18 Aug 2010 10:59:06 -0700 6977924: Changes for 6975078 produce build error with certain gcc versions
johnc [Wed, 18 Aug 2010 10:59:06 -0700] rev 6263
6977924: Changes for 6975078 produce build error with certain gcc versions Summary: The changes introduced for 6975078 assign badHeapOopVal to the _allocation field in the ResourceObj class. In 32 bit linux builds with certain versions of gcc this assignment will be flagged as an error while compiling allocation.cpp. In 32 bit builds the constant value badHeapOopVal (which is cast to an intptr_t) is negative. The _allocation field is typed as an unsigned intptr_t and gcc catches this as an error. Reviewed-by: jcoomes, ysr, phh
Wed, 18 Aug 2010 11:39:21 -0700 6977970: CMS: concurrentMarkSweepGeneration.cpp:7947 assert(addr <= _limit) failed: sweep invariant
ysr [Wed, 18 Aug 2010 11:39:21 -0700] rev 6262
6977970: CMS: concurrentMarkSweepGeneration.cpp:7947 assert(addr <= _limit) failed: sweep invariant Summary: Allow for the possibility (when the heap is expanding) that the sweep might skip over and past, rather than necessarily step on, the sweep limit determined at the beginning of a concurrent marking cycle. Reviewed-by: jmasa, tonyp
Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:40:00 -0400 6975964: G1: print out a more descriptive message for evacuation failure when +PrintGCDetails is set
tonyp [Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:40:00 -0400] rev 6261
6975964: G1: print out a more descriptive message for evacuation failure when +PrintGCDetails is set Summary: we're renaming "evacuation failure" to "to-space overflow". I'm also piggy-backing a small additional change which removes the "Mark closure took..." output. Reviewed-by: ysr, johnc
Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:40:00 -0400 6974928: G1: sometimes humongous objects are allocated in young regions
tonyp [Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:40:00 -0400] rev 6260
6974928: G1: sometimes humongous objects are allocated in young regions Summary: as the title says, sometimes we are allocating humongous objects in young regions and we shouldn't. Reviewed-by: ysr, johnc
Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:40:00 -0400 6959014: G1: assert(minimum_desired_capacity <= maximum_desired_capacity) failed: sanity check
tonyp [Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:40:00 -0400] rev 6259
6959014: G1: assert(minimum_desired_capacity <= maximum_desired_capacity) failed: sanity check Summary: There are a few issues in the code that calculates whether to resize the heap and by how much: a) some calculations can overflow 32-bit size_t's, b) min_desired_capacity is not bounded by the max heap size, and c) the assrt that fires is in the wrong place. The fix also includes some tidying up of the related verbose code. Reviewed-by: ysr, jmasa
(0) -3000 -1000 -300 -100 -30 -10 -6 +6 +10 +30 +100 +300 +1000 +3000 +10000 +30000 tip