review for 7045514: SPARC assembly code for JSR 292 ricochet frames
Tom Rodriguez
tom.rodriguez at oracle.com
Thu Jun 2 11:49:15 PDT 2011
On Jun 2, 2011, at 9:20 AM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> On 6/1/11 9:10 PM, Tom Rodriguez wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>
> Yes, this flag is on by default so I want to know if we can run with it off.
It seems to work with it off.
>
>>
>>>
>>> methodHandles_sparc.cpp:
>>>
>>> Can you do the decrement of slot_num as separate expressions?:
>>
>> -= is the same as predecrement not postdecrement, right?
>
> I am not sure, this is why is why I asked to separate it.
>
>>
>>>
>>> + 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];
>>
>
> Good.
>
>>>
>>> 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);
>> }
>
> Good.
>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> Swap is fine.
Fixed.
tom
>
> Thanks,
> Vladimir
>
>>
>> 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