RFR: 8144953: runtime/CommandLine/TraceExceptionsTest.java fails when exception is thrown in compiled code

[Rachel Protacio]

Cool. I've fixed the issue: 
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rprotacio/8144953.02/

Thanks!
Rachel

On 1/7/2016 5:27 PM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>
> Hi, I really like this except the second argument to log_exception 
> isn't needed.   It's just
>
> oop fmt = exception();   Or you can pass
>
> *+ message->as_C_string(), p2i(exception()), tempst.as_string());*
>
>
> See src/share/vm/runtime/handles.hpp for Handle - operator() turns 
> into an oop.
>
> But this looks really good.  If it was like this, I wouldn't have 
> introduced the bug in the first place.
>
> Thanks,
> Coleen
>
> On 1/7/16 3:55 PM, Rachel Protacio wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've refactored as suggested: 
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rprotacio/8144953.01/
>>
>> TraceExceptionsTest.java still passes, both when run regularly and 
>> when run with compiled code.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rachel
>>
>> On 1/6/2016 3:35 PM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/6/16 3:30 PM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I missed the one in the compiler file.  I would really like if 
>>>> there was only one function for this logging though, but am trying 
>>>> to think of the best place for it.
>>>
>>> So can this be consolidated into Exceptions::log_exception() in 
>>> src/share/vm/utilities/exceptions.hpp/cpp ?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Coleen
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Coleen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/6/16 2:47 PM, Rachel Protacio wrote:
>>>>> Thanks for the review, David. My impression was that no one had 
>>>>> realized that the detailed message was needed anywhere else in 
>>>>> that original 8048933, so this is just a matter of thoroughness, 
>>>>> but maybe Coleen can speak to that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Rachel
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/6/2016 12:42 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Rachel,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/01/2016 3:42 AM, Rachel Protacio wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please review this fix allowing TraceExceptionTest.java to pass 
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> compiled code. c1_Runtime1.cpp had been missing the necessary 
>>>>>>> long-form
>>>>>>> message, which has been added, and at the same time I discovered
>>>>>>> bytecodeInterpreter.cpp was similarly lacking, though no test 
>>>>>>> had turned
>>>>>>> it up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So really this is extending the change introduced by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8048933
>>>>>>
>>>>>> which begs the question as to why that change was only made for 
>>>>>> interpreted code in the first place?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Changes look okay but I can't vouch for the validity of those 
>>>>>> calls in that particular context.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Passes JPRT and RBT tests.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Open webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rprotacio/8144953/
>>>>>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8144953
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Rachel
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>