[hs] RFR (L): 8010319: Implementation of JEP 181: Nest-Based Access Control

[David Holmes]

On 23/05/2018 8:50 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> On 05/22/2018 11:44 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>> On 23/05/2018 2:35 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>>> On 05/22/2018 06:01 PM, Andrew Dinn wrote:
>>>>>       aarch64: FAILED
>>>>>          java/lang/invoke/SpecialInterfaceCall.java
>>>>>             http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shade/nestmates/SpecialInterfaceCall-hs_err.log
>>>>>
>>>>> I have not dug deeper yet, AArch64 maintainers are welcome to step in!
>>>> I'm not sure what is going on here.
>>>>
>>>> A few days ago I patched the jdk/jdk dev tree with David's megapatch,
>>>> built on AArch64 and ran tier1 tests, obtaining results before and after
>>>> patching. There were some tier1 test failures which did not seem to
>>>> relate to the NestMates patch. All three of CondyReturnPrimitiveTest,
>>>> CondyWrongType and SpecialInterfaceCall passed before and after.
>>>>
>>>> I will check to see the patch has been applied correctly and rerun these
>>>> tests. Aleksey, perhaps you could try again using a patched jdkdev?
>>>
>>> Applied David's webrev.hotspot.v1 over current jdk/jdk, and SpecialInterfaceCall fails the same way
>>> with linux-aarch64-fastdebug on my Raspberry Pi 3.
>>
>> You can't just apply the hotspot patch! You need the entire thing.
> 
> Duh, right. In this case, we were "saved" by the fact the failing test seems to explore hotspot side
> of things only, and it fails the same way the nestmates branch in valhalla repo. And anyhow,
> applying the full patch fails the same way :)

SpecialInterfaceCall shouldn't be failing! Can you confirm it only fails 
with nestmates patches applied? (It's not a nestmate test and should** 
be unaffected by nestmate changes.)

** There is a slight difference that shouldn't affect anything - and 
certainly shouldn't be platform specific!

Thanks,
David

> -Aleksey
>