RFR (M): 8003853: specify offset of IC load in java_to_interp stub

[Christian Thalinger]

Looks good.  Dean, can you push the change?

-- Chris

On Apr 24, 2013, at 1:47 AM, "Lindenmaier, Goetz" <goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>  
> Yes, your comments make the code look better.
> I made a new webrev:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~goetz/webrevs/8003853-4/
>  
> I did not do a zero build.
>  
> Best regards,
>   Goetz.
>  
>  
> From: Christian Thalinger [mailto:christian.thalinger at oracle.com] 
> Sent: Dienstag, 23. April 2013 21:06
> To: Lindenmaier, Goetz
> Cc: hotspot-compiler-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: RFR (M): 8003853: specify offset of IC load in java_to_interp stub
>  
>  
> On Apr 23, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Christian Thalinger <christian.thalinger at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> The change looks good.  I have some minor comments though:
> src/share/vm/code/compiledIC.hpp:
> 
> +  static uint to_interp_stub_size();
> +  static uint reloc_to_interp_stub();
> +            stub_size  += CompiledStaticCall::to_interp_stub_size();
> +            reloc_size += CompiledStaticCall::reloc_to_interp_stub();
> stub_size and reloc_size are ints.  We should change the return type from uint to int.
>  
> src/cpu/x86/vm/compiledIC_x86.cpp:
>  108 uint CompiledStaticCall::to_interp_stub_size() {
>  109   return 10              // movl; jmp
>  110          LP64_ONLY(+5);  // movq (1+1+8); jmp (1+4)
>  111 }
> In expectancy of future changes we should do:
>  108 uint CompiledStaticCall::to_interp_stub_size() {
>  109   return NOT_LP64(10)    // movl; jmp
>  110          LP64_ONLY(15);  // movq (1+1+8); jmp (1+4)
>  111 }
> And one question unrelated to this change (because it was there before):
>  
> src/cpu/sparc/vm/compiledIC_sparc.cpp:
>  126 // Relocation entries for call stub, compiled java to interpreter.
>  127 uint CompiledStaticCall::reloc_to_interp_stub() {
>  128   return 10;  // 4 in emit_java_to_interp + 1 in Java_Static_Call
>  129 }
> Why does it say 5 relocations but returns 10?
>  
> Did someone try a Zero build?
>  
> Presumably not because Zero builds are broken right now.  I just filed:
>  
> 8013067: Zero builds are broken after 8010862
>  
> -- Chris
>  
>  
> -- Chris
>  
> On Apr 23, 2013, at 1:09 AM, "Lindenmaier, Goetz" <goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi all,
>  
> In the java_to_interp stub of CompiledStaticCalls one relocation is used to find
> two code locations:
> -          the beginning of the stub
> -          the IC load instruction.
> On x86 and sparc, the IC load instruction is the first instruction of the stub,
> thus both locations have the same address.
> On PPC, the IC load instruction is not the first instruction in the stub, thus
> we must add an offset to the relocation to access it.
>  
> As the manipulation of  CompiledStaticCalls is in shared code, we would have
> to introduce platform dependencies there.
>  
> This change moves the platform dependent code from CompiledStaticCall
> to a new file compiledIC_<cpu>.cpp.  It also moves the code issuing the
> stub from the ad file to this new file into the class CompiledStaticCall.
> This removes redundancies between x86_64.ad and x86_32.ad.  Also,
> ‘extern’ declarations in compile.cpp can be replaced by properly typed
> Calls to methods in CompiledStaticCall.
>  
> Dean Long ran this change through JPRT with status OK (thanks!).
>  
> Please review and push this change.
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~goetz/webrevs/8003853-3/
>  
> Best regards,
>   Goetz Lindenmaier
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/attachments/20130424/26af2362/attachment-0001.html