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

[Jiangli Zhou]

Thanks, Chris.

Jiangli

On 09/27/2013 01:23 PM, Christian Thalinger wrote:
> Looks good.
>
> On Sep 27, 2013, at 9:36 AM, Jiangli Zhou <jiangli.zhou at oracle.com> 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