[11] RFR jck test fails with C2: vm/jvmti/FollowReferences/fref001/fref00113/fref00113.html

[Lindenmaier, Goetz]

Hi,

thanks for fixing this, I haven't seen the issue tonight any more.

Best regards,
  Goetz.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: hotspot-dev [mailto:hotspot-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net] On
> Behalf Of Paul Sandoz
> Sent: Dienstag, 3. Juli 2018 19:44
> To: Coleen Phillimore <coleen.phillimore at oracle.com>
> Cc: hotspot-dev developers <hotspot-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> Subject: Re: [11] RFR jck test fails with C2:
> vm/jvmti/FollowReferences/fref001/fref00113/fref00113.html
> 
> 
> 
> > On Jul 3, 2018, at 10:25 AM, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/3/18 12:26 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Jul 2, 2018, at 11:43 AM, Vladimir Kozlov
> <vladimir.kozlov at oracle.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 7/2/18 10:39 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>> Please review this fix for 11:
> >>>>   http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psandoz/jdk/JDK-8202769-ci-stream-cp-
> tag/webrev/
> >>> Seems good to me. I will run testing with it.
> >>>
> >> Thanks, i see all relevant tests pass, so ok to push?
> >
> > You need two reviewers,
> 
> Ok.
> 
> 
> > and are you pushing this to JDK11 ?
> >
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> > The patch in the bug report seems better because you don't know that all
> of the callers want to convert JVM_CONSTANT_Dynamic to the underlying
> type that the Symbol points to.  The name of the ciStream function implies
> that it just returns tag_at().   I would assume that there would be other
> callers that want to do something with the actual tag, like print the bytecode
> stream for example.
> >
> 
> The patch in the bug report was a quick hack to get the test running by
> reverting what was pushed for constant dynamic support, but it will result in
> failures if it encounters a constant dynamic entry as the type of the dynamic
> constant is required and not JVM_CONSTANT_Dynamic.
> 
> The method ciBytecodeStream::get_constant_pool_tag is used for producing
> ldc instructions in what appears to be specialized cases, see the two usages in
> BCEscapeAnalyzer::iterate_one_block and Parse::do_one_bytecode.
> 
> We could rename it to Parse::get_constant_pool_tag_for_ldc ? if so would
> prefer to do that as a separate issue for 12 only.
> 
> Thanks,
> Paul.
> 
> > Coleen
> >
> >>
> >> Paul.
> >