RFR: (S): SA: clhsdb 'where -a' throws Assertion Failure with illegal code 236 when CDS is used

[Ioi Lam]

Looks good. Thanks!

- Ioi


On 5/7/18 8:38 PM, Jini George wrote:
> Thank you very much, Ioi, for the review and for the clarifications 
> and help provided offline. I have added the checks for 
> _nofast_getfield and _nofast_putfield. SA has a bug due to which for 
> iload, only the base bytecode (iload) gets displayed -- fast_iload and 
> nofast_iload do not get displayed. JDK-8202693 (SA: clhsdb printall 
> only displays the base bytecode for iload) has been filed for this. I 
> would add the test for nofast_iload along with the fix for JDK-8202693.
>
> The modified webrev is at:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jgeorge/8174995/webrev.01/
>
> Thanks,
> Jini.
>
> On 4/27/2018 1:54 AM, Ioi Lam wrote:
>> HI Jini,
>>
>> [1] "_nofast_aload" should be "_nofast_aload_0": aload and aload_0 
>> are two different bytecodes.
>>
>> [2] Only the _nofast_aload_0 bytecode is tested. For completeness, do 
>> you think it makes sense to add test cases for these other 3 bytecodes?
>>
>>      _nofast_getfield
>>      _nofast_putfield
>>      _nofast_iload
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>> - Ioi
>>
>> On 4/26/18 11:15 AM, Jini George wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> Please review the following proposed fix for the issue:
>>>
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8174995
>>>
>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jgeorge/8174995/webrev.00/
>>>
>>> Issue: Clhsdb commands like 'where -a', 'printall' would throw an 
>>> illegal code assertion failure when CDS is used.
>>>
>>> Root cause and proposed fix: SA has been unaware of the new 
>>> bytecodes introduced for rewriting at CDS dump time (_nofast* 
>>> bytecodes). The fix is to make SA aware of these new _nofast* 
>>> bytecodes.
>>>
>>> Tests Run and Passed: SA tests on Mach5 (including the tests 
>>> modified to test this fix).
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Jini.
>>