RFR 8152065: TraceBytecodes breaks the interpreter expression stack

[Coleen Phillimore]

Hi,  Thank you for looking at this.

IRT_LEAF and JRT_LEAF are almost identical, just like JRT_ENTRY and 
IRT_ENTRY.  It's just the convention in interpreterRuntime.cpp to use 
the IRT version.

I guess someday we should get rid of the IRT versions.  I'm not sure 
what the history was behind them.

Coleen


On 3/17/16 8:47 PM, David Holmes wrote:
> On 18/03/2016 10:08 AM, Jiangli Zhou wrote:
>> Hi Coleen,
>>
>> This looks like a safe fix, but I probably can’t serve as a very good 
>> reviewer for this area. I have a question. Would ‘JRT_LEAF’ work also 
>> in this case?
>
> That was my question too!
>
> David
>
>> Thanks,
>> Jiangli
>>
>>> On Mar 17, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Coleen Phillimore 
>>> <coleen.phillimore at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Summary: Move trace_bytecode to InterpreterRuntime and make 
>>> trace_bytecode an IRT_LEAF so that safepoints are not allowed.
>>>
>>> open webrev at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coleenp/8152065.01/webrev
>>> bug link https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8152065
>>>
>>> Tested with test program for bug 
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8151256 and runThese with 
>>> -XX:+TraceBytecodes for a few minutes (output file got too big).
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Coleen
>>