RFR: 8343019: Primitive caches must use boxed instances from the archive [v2]

[Aleksey Shipilev]

On Tue, 29 Oct 2024 13:12:56 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev <shade at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> This is forked from [JDK-8342642](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8342642) and filed as a general issue for archived boxed Integer cache when it's recreated at runtime. In short, current code drops the entire primitive cache when the CDS archived version of the cache is too short. This poses a problem with code that uses CDS archived cache instances, since the boxed equality would break when comparing the CDS-archived value and the IntegerCache value recreated at runtime.
>> 
>> Ioi suggested a fix here: https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/21672#issuecomment-2434359711. I separately arrived to the same idea. This PR implements it. `IntegerCache` gets the special treatment, because it is the only cache that can be tuned. Other caches just prevent the use of bad archived cache (which I think should realistically never happen) without re-creating it.
>> 
>> I tested this patch with original reproducer from [JDK-8342642](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8342642) -- and it starts to pass.
>> 
>> Additional testing:
>>  - [x] macos-aarch64-server-fastdebug, [JDK-8342642](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8342642) reproducer now passes
>>  - [x] macos-aarch64-server-fastdebug, new regression test fails without the fix, passes with it
>>  - [x] linux-aarch64-server-fastdebug, `all`
>
> Aleksey Shipilev has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains four additional commits since the last revision:
> 
>  - IllegalStateException -> InternalError
>  - Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8343019-cds-use-boxed
>  - Exception messages
>  - Fix

Good news! Thanks to Ioi's suggestion, I was finally able to create a direct regression test for it. See new commits.

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21737#issuecomment-2446382857