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

[Vladimir Kozlov]

Looks good. Thank you for finding the right solution.

Vladimir

On 9/27/13 9:36 AM, Jiangli Zhou wrote:
> Hi Vladimir,
>
> Here is the new webrev with 'copy_buff -= *byte_count' being added back. I've also added a separate ARM change in closed
> code to make load_appendix being handled the same as load_klass and load_mirror.
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jiangli/8024990/webrev.02/
>
> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>