RFR(S) 8231756: [JVMCI] need support for deoptimizing virtual byte arrays encoding non-byte primitives

[Vladimir Kozlov]

Good.

Thanks,
Vladimir

On 4/15/20 5:34 PM, Tom Rodriguez wrote:
> I've updated the webrev in place with the new ifdefs in deoptimization.cpp.  The mach5 run was clean apart from known 
> failures.
> 
> tom
> 
> Vladimir Kozlov wrote on 4/15/20 11:12 AM:
>> After discussion with Tom offline I agree to keep his SPARC code because we would need to backport this later into 11u.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vladimir
>>
>> On 4/14/20 2:07 PM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>>> On 4/14/20 1:44 PM, Tom Rodriguez wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Vladimir Kozlov wrote on 4/3/20 5:41 PM:
>>>>> I think new code in deoptimize.cpp should be JVMCI specific.
>>>>>
>>>>> I filed 8242150 for serviceability tests failures in testing. It seems caused by recent changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is weird to see SPARC_32 checks in deoptimization.cpp which we should not have in new code:
>>>>>
>>>>> #ifdef _LP64
>>>>>          jlong res = (jlong) *((jlong *) &val);
>>>>> #else
>>>>> #ifdef SPARC
>>>>>        // For SPARC we have to swap high and low words.
>>>>>
>>>>> We don't support such configuration for eons.
>>>>
>>>> Currently there are 3 places in deoptimization.cpp that handle sparc 32 bit, like 
>>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/file/tip/src/hotspot/share/runtime/deoptimization.cpp#l1084.  Should remove those 
>>>> and the logic in my new code?  output.cpp appears to have a case as well.
>>>
>>> No, we will remove them soon for JEP: 381: Remove the Solaris and SPARC Ports.
>>>
>>> I don't want you to add new case.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see  where _support_large_access_byte_array_virtualization is checked. If it is only in Graal then it 
>>>>> should be guarded by #if.
>>>>
>>>> I'll add the requested ifdefs.
>>>
>>> Good.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Vladimir
>>>
>>>>
>>>> tom
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Vladimir
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/3/20 12:37 PM, Tom Rodriguez wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vladimir Kozlov wrote on 4/3/20 10:31 AM:
>>>>>>> Hi Tom,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I looked on testing results and one test fails consistently:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> compiler/jvmci/jdk.vm.ci.hotspot.test/src/jdk/vm/ci/hotspot/test/VirtualObjectLayoutTest.java 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry that was an old mach5 run and I forgot to update with the new one.  There are some failures but they seem 
>>>>>> unrelated to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> tom
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vladimir K
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/2/20 12:12 PM, Tom Rodriguez wrote:
>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~never/8231756/webrev
>>>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8231756
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This adds support for deoptimizing with non-byte primitive values stored on top of a byte array, similarly to 
>>>>>>>> the way that a double or long can be stored on top of 2 int fields.  More detail is provided in the bug report 
>>>>>>>> and new unit tests exercise the deoptimization. mach5 testing is in progress.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> tom