javac/client compiler crashes fixed

[Charles Oliver Nutter]

FYI, here's the results of qpush -a...I notice the compiler.inline
patch isn't applying because it's -testable:

~/projects/davinci ➔ sh patches/make/each-patch-repo.sh 'hg qpush -a'
+ (cd sources/hotspot; hg qpush -a)
applying 6833129.patch
applying 6873116.patch
applying meth-6862576.patch
applying meth.patch
applying nonperm.patch
applying meth.walker.patch
applying indy.patch
applying indy.compiler.patch
skipping indy.compiler.inline.patch - guarded by '-testable'
skipping indy-amd64.patch - guarded by '-buildable'
skipping indy-sparc.patch - guarded by '-buildable'
skipping meth.proj.patch - guarded by ['+projects']
skipping anonk.proj.patch - guarded by ['+projects']
skipping annot.patch - guarded by '-testable'
skipping inti.patch - guarded by '-buildable'
skipping callcc.patch - guarded by '-testable'
skipping tailc.patch - guarded by ['+tailc-lazy']
skipping tailc-eager.patch - guarded by ['+tailc-lazy']
now at: indy.compiler.patch
+ (cd sources/jdk; hg qpush -a)
applying indy.tests.patch
applying indy.pack.patch
applying indy.patch
skipping dyncast.patch - guarded by ['+dyncast']
skipping inti.patch - guarded by '-buildable'
skipping callcc.patch - guarded by '-testable'
skipping tailc.patch - guarded by ['+tailc']
now at: indy.patch
+ (cd sources/langtools; hg qpush -a)
applying meth.patch
skipping dyncast.patch - guarded by ['+dyncast']
skipping tailc.patch - guarded by ['+tailc']
now at: meth.patch



On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Charles Oliver
Nutter<headius at headius.com> wrote:
> Ok...I did an updated build, and things are definitely better in the
> crash department. But I wonder if I'm not getting all the appropriate
> patches applied...
>
> client still crashes for me with bench_fib_recursive, but server runs
> successfully, albeit very slowly, about 10x slower than non-indy
> execution.
>
> Other simple scripts don't seem to crash at all now, which is also good.
>
> I've attached the crash output...let me know if there's anything else
> I can provide (like confirmation of head revisions, etc).
>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:37 PM, John Rose<John.Rose at sun.com> wrote:
>> Yes!  Thanks for slogging through this one, Christian.
>>
>> -- John  (on my iPhone)
>>
>> On Aug 21, 2009, at 5:52 AM, Christian Thalinger <Christian.Thalinger at Sun.COM
>>  > wrote:
>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Sorry for the long delay on this one, but we had to sort out some
>>> stuff
>>> about this patch upstream.
>>>
>>> Finally, this change fixes the crashes you have seen in javac (no need
>>> for -J-Xint anymore).  Please let me know if something still fails.
>>>
>>> -- Christian
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mlvm-dev mailing list
>>> mlvm-dev at openjdk.java.net
>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> mlvm-dev mailing list
>> mlvm-dev at openjdk.java.net
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
>>
>