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

[Chris Plummer]

Hi Jini,

Why are _nofast_aload_0 and _nofast_iload using return type 
BasicType.getTIllegal() when the return type is known?

The test changes look good.

thanks,

Chris

On 5/8/18 8:53 AM, Jini George wrote:
> Thanks, Ioi. Could I get one more reviewer to take a look at this ?
>
> Thanks,
> Jini.
>
> On 5/8/2018 8:55 PM, Ioi Lam wrote:
>> 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.
>>>>
>>