RFR 8152065: TraceBytecodes breaks the interpreter expression stack

[David Holmes]

On 18/03/2016 11:34 AM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>
> 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.

Sure - but then why the move from SharedRuntime to IntepreterRuntime ?

Thanks,
David

> 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
>>>
>