[8u-dev] Request for Approval: Backport of 8184271 and 8184009

[Tobias Hartmann]

Thanks David!

Pushed it.

Best regards,
Tobias

On 10.08.2017 10:20, David Buck wrote:
> approved pending successful code review of the JDK 8 version of the changeset
> 
> I am CCing the HotSpot Compiler Development alias. If any Reviewers include this thread / alias when they approve, no 
> further action will be required before pushing this change to jdk8u-dev.
> 
> The definition we use for "trivial" requires the changeset exported from JDK 9/10 to be applicable to the JDK 8 forest 
> as-is. This means zero manual editing. The only exceptions we make are for copyright year and path un-shuffling. Even if 
> the surrounding lines of code which prevent a patch from being applied have nothing to do with the change, we require a 
> new code review for the JDK 8 version of the change.
> 
> Cheers,
> -Buck
> 
> On 2017/08/10 12:02, Tobias Hartmann wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> just a reminder. I don't need a dev review for the trivial merge, right?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tobias
>>
>> On 02.08.2017 18:53, Tobias Hartmann wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> please approve the backports of the following fixes to JDK 8u:
>>>
>>> 8184271: Time related C1 intrinsics produce inconsistent results when floating around
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8184271
>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/2017-July/026681.html
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~thartmann/8184271/webrev.00/
>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk10/hs/hotspot/rev/cc2bc9993d64
>>>
>>> The patch does not apply cleanly but requires a (trivial) merge:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~thartmann/8184271_8u/webrev.00/
>>>
>>> 8184009: Missing null pointer check in InterpreterRuntime::update_mdp_for_ret()
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8184009
>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2017-July/027514.html
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~thartmann/8184009/webrev.00/
>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk10/hs/hotspot/rev/56a68e37d23b
>>>
>>> Both fixes were pushed to JDK 10 and testing showed no problems.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tobias