RFR (L) : 8014013 : CallInfo structure no longer accurately reports the result of a LinkResolver operation

[David Chase]

This time, for sure:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~drchase/8014013/webrev.07/

Developer flags seem not to cause crashes now (added ResourceMark rm(THREAD); )
Comment on surprisingly important "placeholder" updated.
Otherwise, same as before, and thoroughly tested (since it was already tested with the placeholder untouched).

David

On 2013-09-13, at 11:26 AM, Karen Kinnear <KAREN.KINNEAR at oracle.com> wrote:

> I'm good with checking this in as is (with an added comment).
> 
> I get it that the developer flags may need their own fixes - ok to investigate as a follow-on bug.
> Same with the remaining non-null placeholder. A comment works for leaving it now, since it passes
> your tests - and a follow-on bug.
> 
> Thank you for doing so much testing, very much appreciated.
> 
> thanks,
> Karen
> 
> On Sep 12, 2013, at 11:23 PM, John Rose wrote:
> 
>> Yikes; those developer flags are very likely to have their own bugs if run through big test suites.
>> 
>> — John
>> 
>> On Sep 12, 2013, at 8:17 PM, David Chase <david.r.chase at oracle.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I see failures, but they are not null pointer exceptions, they are instead something to do with memory leaks
>>> and resource marks.  I would examine the hs_err files, except that our glorious test harness didn't seem to think
>>> they were worth preserving, so they're gone now.  I'm going to go looking for options.
>>> 
>>> David
>>> 
>>> On 2013-09-12, at 5:49 PM, Karen Kinnear <KAREN.KINNEAR at oracle.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> David,
>>>> 
>>>> I will do a full review tomorrow.
>>>> A couple of quick questions:
>>>> 
>>>> 1) In linkResolver.cpp, in resolve_field, I would have expected the if !check_access to just skip
>>>> the check_field_accessibility. I was surprised to see it also skipping other error checks. Is there
>>>> a reason for that? (I get the loader constraint tests being skipped), but what about for example
>>>> initializing the class?
>>>> 
>>>> 2) I still see // use a non-null placeholder on line 1059
>>>> 
>>>> 3) If the non-null was for debug printing - you want to run a quick test with maybe one of  mlvm tests? with your favorite flags:
>>>> vm set would include:
>>>> -XX:+TraceMethodHandles -XX:+Verbose
>>>> -XX:+ShowHiddenFrames
>>>> -XX:+TraceInvokeDynamic
>>>> -XX:+PrintMethodHandleStubs
>>>> 
>>>> and the favorite jdk 292 flags - 
>>>> -Djava.lang.invoke.MethodHandle.DUMP_CLASS_FILES
>>>> -Djava.lang.invoke.MethodHandle.DEBUG_NAMES
>>>> -Djava.lang.invoke.MethodHandle.TRACE_INTERPRETER
>>>> -Djava.lang.invoke.MethodHandle.TRACE_METHOD_LINKAGE
>>>> 
>>>> thanks,
>>>> Karen
>>>> 
>>>> On Sep 11, 2013, at 10:33 PM, David Chase wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> New webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~drchase/8014013/webrev.05/
>>>>> 
>>>>> Retested post changes:
>>>>> vm.quick.testlist
>>>>> defmeth
>>>>> jdk/test/java/util
>>>>> jdk/test/jdk/lambda
>>>>> 
>>>>> jprt to confirm compilable across all platforms (this has been an issue)
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 2013-09-10, at 10:17 AM, Karen Kinnear <KAREN.KINNEAR at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Good.  At this level, "static" linkage is the kind of linkage used always for both invokestatic and invokespecial, and sometimes for invokevirtual and invokeinterface (in some corner cases).
>>>>>> Overuse of the term static - a bit confusing. Thanks for the explanation, perhaps the comment could clarify.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Comment now clarifies.
>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 6. linkResolver.cpp
>>>>>>>>> CallInfo::CallInfo:
>>>>>>>>> Why are _selected_klass and _selected_method set to resolved_klass and resolve_method?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Mainly (I think) to prevent print statements from SEGV-ing.
>>>>>> Please change this back - and don't set the information if it is not accurate. Please fix the print statements
>>>>>> to handle null. Null provides meaningful information. If you are using the information as the selected
>>>>>> klass and selected method, I would like to understand cases in which you do that, that are handled outside
>>>>>> of the LinkResolver please, since this would imply perhaps different behavior for invokedynamic options
>>>>>> and I would really like to understand those.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Changed back.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 163 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Url : http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-runtime-dev/attachments/20130913/cf5781bd/signature.asc