RFR: JDK-8264899: C1: -XX:AbortVMOnException does not work if all methods in the call stack are compiled with C1 and there are no exception handlers [v3]

[Martin Doerr]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 11:05:45 GMT, Damon Fenacci <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> # Problem
>> The `AbortVMOnException` flag prints the stack trace instead of aborting when the code gets compiled with C1.
>> This only happens when the exception gets unwound, all methods in the call stack are compiled with C1 and there are no exception handlers for that exception.
>> This happens here (for x86. Other platform's implementations are similar):
>> 
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/4d4706967d44b6908406818bb135f94130f373a0/src/hotspot/cpu/x86/c1_Runtime1_x86.cpp#L1209-L1215
>> 
>> # Solution
>> To catch this situation, if `AbortVMOnException` is set, a call to check if there is a match is added when unwinding the exception. This is done in the `void Runtime1::generate_unwind_exception` which is the sole call of the `unwind_exception_id` case.
>> 
>> On a few architectures a *move* instruction is needed (e.g. `__ mov(rscratch1, exception_oop)`) to copy the exception oop into a different register that doesn't conflict with the argument of the C calling convention. This is checked with asserts in most architectures but not for *aarch64* (new enhancement issue: [JDK-8310020](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8310020)).
>> 
>> A regression test is added as well.
>> 
>> # Testing
>> This fix includes changes for x86_32/64 and aarch64, which I could test thoroughly but also for **arm**, **ppc**, **riscv**, and **s390** for which I would **need some help with testing**.
>
> Damon Fenacci has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   JDK-8264899: remove stub reordering

src/hotspot/cpu/ppc/c1_Runtime1_ppc.cpp line 556:

> 554: 
> 555:         if (AbortVMOnException) {
> 556:           __ mr(R11_scratch1, Rexception);

This line is unused. Please remove it. Otherwise, good!

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14240#discussion_r1230793448