[8u] Request for approval: 8087120: [GCC5] java.lang.StackOverflowError on Zero JVM initialization on non x86 platforms

[Vladimir Kozlov]

Related 8074552 and 8075533 are not backported to 8u.
So I would suggest to push your point fix with new bug id (and link it to 8075967)

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8074552
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8075533

Thanks,
Vladimir

On 11/19/15 7:18 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8u/jdk8u-dev/hotspot
>>
>> On 11/19/15 9:21 AM, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 15:43 +0000, Rob McKenna wrote:
>>>> Correct. You need a sponsor. Perhaps Andrew would be willing to help?
>>>> Failing that please work with the hotspot group.
>>>
>>> Thanks, Rob.
>>>
>>> Hotspot people: To which JDK 8 tree should this get pushed? Andrew,
>>> tells me that he can push it for me once we know where :)
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Severin
>>>
>>>> 	-Rob
>>>>
>>>> On 19/11/15 09:41, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 2015-11-18 at 21:08 +0000, Rob McKenna wrote:
>>>>>> Approved. Please add a suitable noreg label to the bug.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 	-Rob
>>>>>
>>>>> Another question: Wouldn't I need a sponsor to get this integrated?
>>>>> Is
>>>>> this being taken care of automatically?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your help!
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Severin
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 18/11/15 10:50, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd like to ask for approval of a Zero-specific hotspot 8
>>>>>>> backport.
>>>>>>> Currently, the jdk8u forest fails to build the Zero variant
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> GCC 5
>>>>>>> due to this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> src/os_cpu/linux_zero/vm/os_linux_zero.cpp:59:10: error:
>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>> returns address of local variable [-Werror=return-local-addr]
>>>>>>>        return dummy;
>>>>>>>               ^
>>>>>>> src/os_cpu/linux_zero/vm/os_linux_zero.cpp:58:11: note:
>>>>>>> declared
>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>        address dummy = (address) &dummy;
>>>>>>>                ^
>>>>>>> Note: Fedora 22+ have GCC 5. The above problem and the actual
>>>>>>> overflow
>>>>>>> bug (if warning is ignored at build time + on relevant arch)
>>>>>>> goes
>>>>>>> away
>>>>>>> when JDK-8087120 gets backported to 8u.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Original Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8087120
>>>>>>> 9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8087
>>>>>>> 120/
>>>>>>> webrev.01/
>>>>>>> 9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot
>>>>>>> -dev
>>>>>>> /2015-June/018884.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The 9 webrev applies with no change to the 8 forest. I'd need
>>>>>>> somebody
>>>>>>> to sponsor this for me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Severin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> Built:
>
> $ /mnt/builder/jdk8u-dev/images/j2sdk-image/bin/java  -version
> openjdk version "1.8.0-internal"
> OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0-internal-andre_2015_11_20_01_48-b00)
> OpenJDK 64-Bit Zero VM (build 25.66-b00, interpreted mode)
>
> with GCC 5.1.0 and pushed the change:
>
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8u/jdk8u-dev/hotspot/rev/c6ef40024aa2
>
> An extra fix was needed to make it build, taken from 8075967:
>
> diff -r c6ef40024aa2 src/cpu/zero/vm/frame_zero.cpp
> --- a/src/cpu/zero/vm/frame_zero.cpp	Fri Jun 12 16:09:45 2015 +0100
> +++ b/src/cpu/zero/vm/frame_zero.cpp	Fri Nov 20 03:17:01 2015 +0000
> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
>   /*
> - * Copyright (c) 2003, 2013, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
> + * Copyright (c) 2003, 2015, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
>    * Copyright 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 Red Hat, Inc.
>    * DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER.
>    *
> @@ -216,7 +216,7 @@
>       valuebuf[buflen - 1] = '\0';
>
>       // Print the result
> -    st->print_cr(" " PTR_FORMAT ": %-21s = %s", addr, fieldbuf, valuebuf);
> +    st->print_cr(" " PTR_FORMAT ": %-21s = %s", p2i(addr), fieldbuf, valuebuf);
>     }
>   }
>
> I don't know if 8075967 should be backported in full (it contains other changes,
> and this seems to have been thrown in there to make it build):
>
> 8075967: Zero interpreter asserts for SafeFetch<32,N> calls in ObjectMonitor
> Summary: Implement SafeFetchX unsafely and make CanUseSafeFetchX false for Zero
> Reviewed-by: sgehwolf, dholmes
>
> or we should backport just the above under a new bug ID. Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
>