review for 7045514: SPARC assembly code for JSR 292 ricochet frames
Tom Rodriguez
tom.rodriguez at oracle.com
Wed Jun 1 21:10:03 PDT 2011
On Jun 1, 2011, at 6:15 PM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> Christian is hero to write all this :)
Yep.
>
> Did you test with -XX:-EnableInvokeDynamic (off)?
No. Are you asking if we can run normal programs with -EnableInvokeDynamic?
>
> methodHandles_sparc.cpp:
>
> Can you do the decrement of slot_num as separate expressions?:
-= is the same as predecrement not postdecrement, right?
>
> + intptr_t* loc = &base[slot_num -= 1];
int slot_num = slot_count - 1;
intptr_t* loc = &base[slot_num];
>
> + loc = &base[slot_num -= type2size[ptype]];
slot_num -= type2size[ptype];
loc = &base[slot_num];
>
> + // Emit code to verify that RBP is pointing at a valid ricochet frame.
> ^ no RBP on sparc
Fixed.
>
> RicochetFrame::verify_clean() has commented out code.
I've removed it.
>
> Should next code use brx() instruction?:
>
> + __ ld_ptr(L4_saved_args_base, __ argument_offset(O5_temp), O7_temp);
> + __ cmp(O7_temp, (int32_t) RETURN_VALUE_PLACEHOLDER);
> + __ br(Assembler::equal, false, Assembler::pt, L_ok_4);
Probably.
>
> In load_conversion_vminfo() could you just use the same assert (CONV_VMINFO_SHIFT == 0) as next method and simplify address expression.
This?
void MethodHandles::load_conversion_vminfo(MacroAssembler* _masm, Address conversion_field_addr, Register reg) {
assert(CONV_VMINFO_SHIFT == 0, "preshifted");
assert(CONV_VMINFO_MASK == right_n_bits(BitsPerBte), "else change type of following load");
__ ldub(conversion_field_addr.plus_disp(BytesPerInt - 1), reg);
}
>
> MethodHandles::verify_stack_move() has commented code. Should UNREASONABLE_STACK_MOVE depends on LP64?
I'm going to rework this.
>
> Could you move following verification code under first condition?:
>
> + if (collect_count_constant >= 0) {
> + collect_count = collect_count_constant;
> + } else {
> + __ load_method_handle_vmslots(O1_collect_count, G3_method_handle, O2_scratch);
> + collect_count = O1_collect_count;
> + }
> + #ifdef ASSERT
> + if (VerifyMethodHandles && collect_count_constant >= 0) {
> + BLOCK_COMMENT("verify collect_count_constant {");
> + __ load_method_handle_vmslots(O3_scratch, G3_method_handle, O2_scratch);
>
> The same for dest_slot_constant verification.
I can join them but I think I might swap the conditions.
tom
>
> Thanks,
> Vladimir
>
> Tom Rodriguez wrote:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~never/7045514
>> 2389 lines changed: 1833 ins; 363 del; 193 mod; 46455 unchg
>> 7045514: SPARC assembly code for JSR 292 ricochet frames
>> Reviewed-by:
>> This is the complete support for Ricochet frames on sparc. Christian
>> did all the work and testing and I just did some final testing and bug
>> fixing.
>> A potential issue with checkcasts reusing locals in
>> methodHandleWalk.cpp was fixed. Comments weren't being transferred
>> onto the MethodHandlesAdapterBlob. A derived oop issue was found
>> where an assert was complaining that an offset was too large but
>> there's no real restriction on the offset of derived oops so I
>> disabled the assert. ResourceMarks were added in verification logic.
>> A verify_vmargslot call was verifying against the wrong signature
>> resulting in occasional incorrect exceptions. I updated the
>> MacroAssembler::debug assertion messages to include the passed in
>> message. Many of blob declarations were moved into shared code so
>> that we don't have to replicate code. Some x86 method handles code
>> was changed to make signatures match.
>> Currently it passes all the jdk regression tests on sparc but I can't
>> run any of the others because of version mismatches between the JDK
>> and the tests. Earlier versions ran those as well they had
>> previously. I also ran the jruby tests and those seemed clean as well.
More information about the hotspot-compiler-dev
mailing list