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

[Christian Thalinger]

Your @run command uses the wrong class name:

  28  * @run main/othervm -XX:+IgnoreUnrecognizedVMOptions -Xcomp -XX:+PrintRelocations Test8044538
  35 public class TestPrintRelocations {

On Jun 9, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Tobias Hartmann <tobias.hartmann at oracle.com> wrote:

>>> 
>>> Hi Chris,
>>> 
>>>>> Hi Vladimir,
>>>>> 
>>>>> thanks for the review.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Looks good. PrintRelocations flag is used very rare, that is why it rotted. Please, add jreg test (use -XX:+IgnoreUnrecognizedVMOptions).
>>>>> I added a jtreg test to test/compiler/8044538/ that uses -Xcomp and -XX:+PrintRecolations. It fails without my changes.
>>>> We are trying to not use bug id directories anymore.  Please move the test to a more meaningful directory with a meaningful name.
>>> Okay, makes sense. I moved the test to test/compiler/PrintRelocations/TestPrintRelocations.java
>> Thanks but that’s too fine grained.  I doubt there will be any other PrintRelocations tests.  So maybe test/compiler/relocations/ makes more sense.
> 
> Okay, I moved it to test/compiler/relocations.
> 
> New webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~thartmann/8044538/webrev.03/
> 
> Thanks,
> Tobias
> 
>> 
>>> New webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~thartmann/8044538/webrev.02/
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tobias
>>> 
>>>>> New webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~thartmann/8044538/webrev.01/
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Since this debug flag almost never used backporting the fix only into 8u may be enough.
>>>>> Okay.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Tobias
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Vladimir
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 6/4/14 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/20140610/551d60b3/attachment.html>