RFR(S): 8050022: linux-sparcv9: assert(SharedSkipVerify || obj->is_oop()) failed: sanity check

[Vladimir Kozlov]

Good.

Thanks,
Vladimir

On 9/15/14 4:25 PM, Morris Meyer wrote:
> Ok.  Here is the latest version. Thanks for the reviews.
>
>          --morris
>
> WEBREV - http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~morris/JDK-8050022.05
>
> On 9/15/14, 4:08 PM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>> We are compiler guys :) We should help C++ compiler too. Why increase
>> live range of a value when it is not needed?
>>
>> On 9/15/14 12:56 PM, John Rose wrote:
>>> On Sep 15, 2014, at 11:24 AM, Vladimir Kozlov
>>> <vladimir.kozlov at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why you defined 'int fpu_index' outside of loop. It is used only in
>>>> local scopes. And don't separate it from use place by comment. Your
>>>> previous webrev had it right.
>>>
>>> But the previous webrev didn't catch all uses of the common
>>> sub-expression.
>>
>> I am complaining only about 'double_index'.
>>
>>> Plus, the temp is used in two cases of the switch.
>>> Would you prefer to introduce the temp twice, one per case?
>>
>> Yes, that is what I want for 'double_index'.
>>
>>> That will also require putting brackets around each case, to
>>> introduce a block scope.
>>
>> Yes, we need parenthesis too.  It is better to have explicit scope
>> anyway.
>>
>> Vladimir
>>
>>>
>>>> Otherwise it looks good.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Vladimir
>>>>
>>>> On 9/13/14 11:26 AM, Morris Meyer wrote:
>>>>> Thanks Vladimir!
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry to drag you through another review, but John had a further
>>>>> cleanup to make things a little more readable.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've tested this and 8043892 on the original machine
>>>>> (slc08gjo.us.oracle.com) and with JPRT.
>>>>>
>>>>>          --morris
>>>>>
>>>>> WEBREV - http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~morris/JDK-8050022.03/
>>>>> JBS - https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8050022
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/12/14, 7:25 PM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>>>>>> Changes look good. Thank you for nice comments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Vladimir
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/12/14 2:16 PM, Morris Meyer wrote:
>>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Upon further inspection John and I looked at the SPARC ABI - and
>>>>>>> the ARM and PPC ABIs as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are applying the stack promotion for floating point registers
>>>>>>> to both LInux and Solaris for the SPARC ABI. I will
>>>>>>> file two P4 bugs to look into this issue on 32-bit ARM and PPC.
>>>>>>> John looked into ARMv8 here
>>>>>>> (http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.ihi0055b/IHI0055B_aapcs64.pdf)
>>>>>>> and found on that chip the callee
>>>>>>> allocates the argument dump area, so the SPARC problem is not
>>>>>>> present.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is my latest rev, which has been tested on the original
>>>>>>> machine (slc08gjo.us.oracle.com) and with JPRT.  I also
>>>>>>> tested this fix against 8043892 which also works now.  I closed
>>>>>>> 8043892 as a duplicate of 8050022.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>          --morris
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WEBREV - http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~morris/JDK-8050022.02
>>>>>>> JBS - https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8050022
>>>>>
>>>
>