RFR: 8203188: Add JEP-181 support to the Zero interpreter

[Severin Gehwolf]

Hi David,

On Tue, 2018-06-05 at 19:46 +1000, David Holmes wrote:
> Looks good.
> 
> I'll push this with the nestmate changes later in the week.

Any update on this?

Thanks,
Severin

> Thanks,
> David
> 
> On 5/06/2018 7:40 PM, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> > Hi David,
> > 
> > Thanks for the review!
> > 
> > On Tue, 2018-06-05 at 14:44 +1000, David Holmes wrote:
> > > Hi Severin,
> > > 
> > > On 5/06/2018 1:26 AM, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > Could I please get a review of this change adding support for JEP-181 -
> > > > a.k.a Nestmates - to Zero. This patch depends on David Holmes'
> > > > Nestmates implementation via JDK-8010319. Thanks to David Holmes and
> > > > Chris Phillips for their initial reviews prior to this RFR.
> > > > 
> > > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8203188
> > > > webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8203188/webrev.02/
> > > 
> > > src/hotspot/cpu/zero/methodHandles_zero.cpp
> > > 
> > > The change here seems to be an existing bug unrelated to nestmate
> > > changes.
> > 
> > Agreed.
> > 
> > > IT also begs the question as to what happens in the same
> > > circumstance with a removed static or "special" method? (I thought I had
> > > a test for that in the nestmates changes ... will need to double-check
> > > and add it if missing!).
> > 
> > It might bomb in the same way (NULL dereference). I'm currently looking
> > at some other potential issues in this area...
> > 
> > > src/hotspot/share/interpreter/bytecodeInterpreter.cpp
> > > 
> > > Interpreter changes seem fine - mirroring what is done elsewhere. You
> > > can delete these incorrect comments:
> > > 
> > > 2576         // This code isn't produced by javac, but could be produced by
> > > 2577         // another compliant java compiler.
> > > 
> > > That code path is taken in more circumstances than the author of that
> > > comment realized. :)
> > 
> > Done.
> > 
> > > > Testing:
> > > > 
> > > > Zero on Linux-x86_64 with the following test set:
> > > > 
> > > > test/jdk/java/lang/invoke/AccessControlTest.java
> > > > test/jdk/java/lang/invoke/FinalVirtualCallFromInterface.java
> > > > test/jdk/java/lang/invoke/PrivateInterfaceCall.java
> > > > test/jdk/java/lang/invoke/SpecialInterfaceCall.java
> > > > test/jdk/java/lang/reflect/Nestmates
> > > > test/hotspot/jtreg/runtime/SelectionResolution/InvokeInterfaceICCE.java
> > > > test/hotspot/jtreg/runtime/SelectionResolution/InvokeInterfaceSuccessTest.java
> > > > test/hotspot/jtreg/runtime/Nestmates
> > > > 
> > > > I cannot run this through the submit repo since the main Nestmates
> > > > patch hasn't yet landed in JDK 11. Currently testing a Zero bootcycle-
> > > > images build on x86_64. Thoughts?
> > 
> > FWIW, bootcycle-images build passed on linux x86_64 Zero.
> > 
> > > I can bundle this in with the nestmate changes when I push them later
> > > this week. Just send me a pointer to the finalized changeset once its
> > > finalized. I'll run it all through a final step of testing equivalent
> > > (actually more than) the submit repo.
> > 
> > OK, thanks!
> > 
> > Latest webrev:
> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8203188/webrev.03/
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Severin
> > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > David
> > > 
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Severin
> > > >