PING: RE: RFR: 8233019: java.lang.Class.isPrimitive() (C1) returns wrong result if Klass* is aligned to 32bit

[Yangfei (Felix)]

Gentle ping ...

Any comments from our maintainers?

Thanks,
Felix

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yangfei (Felix)
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 8:18 PM
> To: 'Aleksey Shipilev' <shade at redhat.com>; jdk8u-dev <jdk8u-
> dev at openjdk.java.net>
> Subject: RE: RFR: 8233019: java.lang.Class.isPrimitive() (C1) returns wrong
> result if Klass* is aligned to 32bit
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for the quick reply :-)
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Aleksey Shipilev [mailto:shade at redhat.com]
> > Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 9:00 PM
> > To: Yangfei (Felix) <felix.yang at huawei.com>; jdk8u-dev <jdk8u-
> > dev at openjdk.java.net>
> > Subject: Re: RFR: 8233019: java.lang.Class.isPrimitive() (C1) returns
> > wrong result if Klass* is aligned to 32bit
> >
> > On 4/26/21 2:52 PM, Yangfei (Felix) wrote:
> > > I find issue JDK-8239477 [1] is triggering for 16 jfr jtreg tests
> > > with fastdebug
> > build.
> > > Fix for this issue depends on JDK-8233019 as it emits a compare with
> > metadataConst(0).
> > > So need to backport JDK-8233019 first.
> > >
> > > Original bug:
> > >      https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8233019
> > >      https://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk-updates/jdk11u/rev/e1b6631cbd2f
> > >
> > > Original patch does not apply to 8u cleanly. Two adaptations are
> > > made for
> > 8u:
> > > 1. Discarded changes in file c1_LIRGenerator.cpp as JDK-8150669 [2]
> > > is not
> > there in 8u.
> > > 2. Added new test
> > hotspot/test/compiler/intrinsics/class/TestClassIsPrimitive.java which
> > was introduced by [2] and further modified by this issue.
> >
> > Honestly, I would consider backporting JDK-8150669 first. It seems quite
> small:
> >    https://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/hotspot/rev/d15b795cdf21
> >
> > Otherwise, we are splicing the fix under the unrelated synopsis...
> >
> > Let 8u maintainers decide.
> 
> Yes, I agree it will be more cleaner if we backport JDK-8150669 first.
> And I am happy to propose another 8u webrev for JDK-8150669 if it's OK for
> 8u maintainers.
> 
> Felix