RFR: 8330275: Crash in XMark::follow_array [v3]

[Ashutosh Mehra]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 05:07:08 GMT, Thomas Stuefe <stuefe at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> I agree from the point of view of backporting, point-fix is all we need in this PR.
>> 
>> @tstuefe  As for the other platforms (riscv and ppc), looking at their code they seem to be broken in the same way as aarch64 but then the problem only happens if the user runs with > 1TB heap size with more than 48 addressable bits.
>> Again, in the spirit of "do not touch if it is not broken", I am fine if we restrict the change to just aarch64.
>> 
>> @tstuefe @stefank please let me know if you agree with just doing the point-fix to aarch64.
>
>> I agree from the point of view of backporting, point-fix is all we need in this PR.
>> 
>> @tstuefe As for the other platforms (riscv and ppc), looking at their code they seem to be broken in the same way as aarch64 but then the problem only happens if the user runs with > 1TB heap size with more than 48 addressable bits. Again, in the spirit of "do not touch if it is not broken", I am fine if we restrict the change to just aarch64.
>> 
>> @tstuefe @stefank please let me know if you agree with just doing the point-fix to aarch64.
> 
> Absolutely. We can do any platform testing on other platforms and cleanups in subsequent RFEs.

@tstuefe does this look ok?

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18941#issuecomment-2100741953