Review request: 8024990: JT_JDK: 11 failures with SIGSEGV on arm-sflt platforms in nightly fastdebug build

[Jiangli Zhou]

Hi Vladimir,

On 09/26/2013 11:26 AM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> Should it be done only for (stub_id == 
> Runtime1::load_appendix_patching_id)?

That sounds safer. I'll add that.

> Neither bug report or your description say that it needs to be removed 
> for load_klass_or_mirror_patch_id too.

I should have included the info when sending the review request. Sorry 
about that.

Just so I understand it more, why 'copy_buff -= *byte_count' was there 
for load_klass_or_mirror_patch_id? Was there a case where instructions 
need to be re-winded?

Thanks,
Jiangli

>
> Thanks,
> Vladimir
>
> On 9/26/13 11:12 AM, Jiangli Zhou wrote:
>> Hi Vladimir,
>>
>> The copy_buff is at the 'ldr' instruction already which is the one we
>> want to patch. Rewinding the copy_buff by *byte_count causes the wrong
>> instruction being patched. I hit an assertion after enabling the patch
>> code is enabled for load_appendix_patching_id. That's why I removed the
>> line.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jiangli
>>
>> On 09/26/2013 10:12 AM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>>> Why next line is removed?:
>>>
>>> -            copy_buff -= *byte_count;
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Vladimir
>>>
>>> On 9/26/13 9:42 AM, Jiangli Zhou wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Please review the fix for 8024990:
>>>>
>>>>    http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jiangli/8024990/webrev.00/
>>>>
>>>> Needs to enable instruction patching for
>>>> Runtime1::load_appendix_patching_id.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Jiangli
>>