On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 11:35:51 GMT, Anton Artemov wrote:
>> test/jdk/jdk/internal/vm/Continuation/Fuzz.java line 477:
>>
>>> 475: boolean shouldPin() {
>>> 476: // Returns false since we never pin after we removed legacy
>>> locking.
>>> 477: return traceHas(Op.PIN::contains)
On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 11:13:32 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Anton Artemov has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> 8359437: Addressed reviewer's comment
>
> test/jdk/jdk/internal/vm/Continuation/Fuzz.java line 477:
>
>> 475: boo
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 12:44:52 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Anton Artemov has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> 8359437: Addressed reviewer's comment
>
> test/jdk/jdk/internal/vm/Continuation/Basic.java line 426:
>
>> 424:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 13:25:20 GMT, Anton Artemov wrote:
>> This PR contains changes for the 1st phase of the `LockingMode` flag
>> obsoletion.
>>
>> The work is done by @fbredber, I have taken it over and am finishing it
>> while he's on vacation.
>>
>> In the 1st phase one keeps the `Lockin
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 09:12:00 GMT, Anton Artemov wrote:
>> test/jtreg-ext/requires/VMProps.java line 424:
>>
>>> 422: * Note: Lightweight locking does not support RTM (for now).
>>> 423: */
>>> 424: protected String vmRTMCompiler() {
>>
>> [JDK-8358542](https://bugs.openjdk.org/bro
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 13:25:20 GMT, Anton Artemov wrote:
>> This PR contains changes for the 1st phase of the `LockingMode` flag
>> obsoletion.
>>
>> The work is done by @fbredber, I have taken it over and am finishing it
>> while he's on vacation.
>>
>> In the 1st phase one keeps the `Lockin
> This PR contains changes for the 1st phase of the `LockingMode` flag
> obsoletion.
>
> The work is done by @fbredber, I have taken it over and am finishing it while
> he's on vacation.
>
> In the 1st phase one keeps the `LockingMode` variable in all places, but
> makes it non-settable from
