RFR 8152065: TraceBytecodes breaks the interpreter expression stack

[Coleen Phillimore]

On 3/17/16 10:09 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>
> 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 ?

Because it's used by the interpreter only.  That's the first place to 
look for it so it's where it belongs.
Coleen

>
> 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
>>>>
>>