[8u] RFR 8130150: Implement BigInteger.montgomeryMultiply intrinsic

[Vladimir Kozlov]

Looks good. I said it before that you need to backport 8139907 too to execute tests only on platforms which have 
intrinsic. Or use other ways to limit platforms on which execute the test.

Thanks,
Vladimir

On 2/19/16 8:28 AM, Vladimir Kempik wrote:
> Hello
>
> Here is updated webrev for 8130150 for jdk8.
>
> only hotspot part was updated.
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vkempik/8130150/webrev_hs.01
>
> Changes:
> sharedRuntime_x86_64.cpp
>
> a) use asm volatile instead of __asm__
> b) don't use montgomery_square on Solaris.
>
>
> Testing: jprt, included testcase.
> THanks, Vladimir.
>
> On 19.02.2016 0:05, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>> Okay.
>>
>> On 2/18/16 12:38 PM, Vladimir Kempik wrote:
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> To be clear.
>>>
>>> I'm proposing :
>>> 1)if(0), only for Solaris (via ifdef Solaris )
>>> 2)volatile asm.
>>>
>>> That is the combination that passes all jprt tests.
>>>
>>> I'll prepare updated webrev a bit later this week.
>>> Vladimir.
>>>
>>> Отправлено с iPad
>>>
>>>> 18 февр. 2016 г., в 23:25, Vladimir Kozlov <vladimir.kozlov at oracle.com> написал(а):
>>>>
>>>> To be clear. You are proposing only the next change nothing else we discussed before. Right?
>>>>
>>>> -  if (len >= MONTGOMERY_SQUARING_THRESHOLD) {
>>>> +  if (0) {
>>>>     ::montgomery_square(a, n, m, (unsigned long)inv, longwords);
>>>>
>>>> What about 'volatile asm'? Using C code instead of asm?
>>>>
>>>> In general I am fine with that since it looks like it is only performance issue.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Vladimir
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/18/16 4:16 AM, Vladimir Kempik wrote:
>>>>> Hello
>>>>>
>>>>> Vladimir Kozlov, do you think I can backport this to jdk8/7 with mentioned workaround (for solaris amd64 only) and
>>>>> then
>>>>> create a bug to investigate why montgomery_square fails with jdk8/7 and solaris studio 12u1 compiler ?
>>>>>
>>>>> It passed the jprt tests now.
>>>>>
>>>>> If so It's ok I'll prepare.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>> On 18.02.2016 14:45, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>>>>> On 02/18/2016 11:41 AM, Vladimir Kempik wrote:
>>>>>>> making this routine to always use montgomery_multiply helped to
>>>>>>> workaround the issue
>>>>>> OK, so possibly a bug in montgomery_square.  I'm not sure what
>>>>>> "helped" means, though.  I guess it doesn't mean "fixes the bug".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andrew.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>