-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.5k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
8290374: Shenandoah: Remove inaccurate comment on SBS::load_reference_barrier() #9522
Conversation
👋 Welcome back zgu! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into |
@zhengyu123 The following labels will be automatically applied to this pull request:
When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing lists. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
OK, right. Looks good.
@zhengyu123 This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks. ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details. After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:
You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed. At the time when this comment was updated there had been 65 new commits pushed to the
As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details. ➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the |
/integrate |
Going to push as commit 011958d.
Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts. |
@zhengyu123 Pushed as commit 011958d. 💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored. |
Please review this trivial patch to remove inaccurate comment.
Even with separate mark-compact marking phase, we still need
is_evacuation_in_progress()
check to deal with the scenario that Full GC was upgraded from concurrent/degenerated GC.Progress
Issue
Reviewers
Reviewing
Using
git
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk pull/9522/head:pull/9522
$ git checkout pull/9522
Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/9522
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk pull/9522/head
Using Skara CLI tools
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 9522
View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 9522
Using diff file
Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/9522.diff