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

[Jiangli Zhou]

Ok.

Thanks,
Jiangli

On 09/26/2013 12:35 PM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> I will wait the result of further investigation as Dean suggested.
>
> Thanks,
> Vladimir
>
> On 9/26/13 12:22 PM, Jiangli Zhou wrote:
>> Hi Vladimir,
>>
>> Here is updated webrev:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jiangli/8024990/webrev.01/.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jiangli
>>
>> On 09/26/2013 11:50 AM, Jiangli Zhou wrote:
>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>
>>