RFR (XS): 8224110 [lworld] Reflective method invocation fails with assert: "illegal type"

[David Simms]

Thanks for pointing out this is a more general issue...your counter use 
case is useful.

Will have a look around for other interesting cases. For LW2 there might 
be an initial hack to convert to objArrayOop.

There is an issue in the VM now where, yes java inline type arrays are 
co-variant but objArrayOop and valueArrayOop do not share the same type 
relationship, and maybe they should. I.e. VM arrayOop get/put elements 
methods (yeah there is polymorphism in C++). Unclear we would win 
anything in terms of performance or heap for VM runtime code. VM runtime 
always handles oops (drastically reduces code changes), meaning 
conversion to objArrayOop is actually fine.

JIT intrinsics will benefit if we allow inline type array.

I'll rework the patch, and do a little more digging. Thanks for the 
feedback guys.

/D

On 12/06/2019 21:26, Roger Riggs wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Is that unique to j.l.invoke?
> There are plenty uses of varargs where the arguments
> are the same type. <T> List.of(<T>... strings), for example.
> There is the ambiguity for a single argument that the compiler warns 
> about
> as in the example that developers have to deal with.
>
> We should avoid exceptions, they require more specification (and warts)
> than being able to just use the whole spec.
> Getting arguments to this kind of method or constructor efficiently is 
> important.
>
> $.02, Roger
>
>
> On 6/12/19 12:53 PM, David Simms wrote:
>>
>> Updated the bug with comment, I was about say, sure let's use inline 
>> type array if you want. But the use cases are thin:
>>
>> "The more I think about it the less I think we should allow inline 
>> type array, not useless all the method args the same inline type, ie:
>>
>> "test(MyValue3 v1, MyValue3 v2, MyValue3 v3)", then passing 
>> MyValue3[] would make sense...but only when all the arg types are the 
>> same...seems like an edge case"
>>
>> All the parameter types have to be the same...is that worth a special 
>> case ?
>>
>>
>> On 12/06/2019 16:52, Roger Riggs wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Would this be just a temporary restriction?
>>> I could see the benefits of being able to use an inline array class 
>>> for varargs.
>>>
>>> ?, Roger
>>>
>>> On 06/12/2019 09:27 AM, David Simms wrote:
>>>> Greetings,
>>>>
>>>> Please review this small fix to prevent "inline type" arrays being 
>>>> sent directly "JVM_InvokeMethod" and 
>>>> "JVM_NewInstanceFromConstructor". I don't believe it is the 
>>>> intention of these methods to receive such a type, in the original 
>>>> problem, there was a javac warning of passing arg[0] implicitly 
>>>> converted to args array.
>>>>
>>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8224110
>>>>
>>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsimms/valhalla/8224110/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>