[9] RFR: 8044538: assert(which != imm_operand) failed: instruction is not a movq reg, imm64

[Dean Long]

Would it make sense to refactor fix_relocation_after_move() to call 
target() now?

dl

On 6/4/2014 1:30 AM, Tobias Hartmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> please review the following patch for bug 8044538.
>
> *Problem*
> Executing a debug build of HotSpot with the flags 
> -XX:+PrintRelocations -Xcomp hits a ShouldNotReachHere() or an assert 
> in Assembler::locate_operand(..) stating that the instruction for 
> which we try to find the operand is not valid.
>
> The problem occurs while printing the relocation entries for a C2 
> compiled function. The C2 compiler adds internal_word_type relocations 
> for the jump table entries in the constant section of a method (see 
> Compile::ConstantTable::fill_jump_table(...)). These relocations are 
> processed by RelocIterator::print_current(...) and 
> internal_word_Relocation::target(). 
> Relocation::pd_get_address_from_code() then tries to retrieve the 
> address from an instruction but fails because the relocation points 
> into the constant section only containing the target address.
>
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8044538
>
> *Solution*
> The implementation of internal_word_Relocation::target() is changed to 
> check if the relocation points into the constant section and if so 
> directly returns the target address instead of trying to retrieve it 
> from an instruction. The same is already done in 
> internal_word_Relocation::fix_relocation_after_move(..).
>
> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~thartmann/8044538/webrev.00/
>
> *Tests*
> Failing configuration, JPRT
>
> Apparently this did not show up for any of our tests. Do we need an 
> additional test for this?
> Since it already fails for JDK 7 and 8. Should we backport the patch?
>
> Thanks,
> Tobias
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/attachments/20140604/4c64958f/attachment.html>