8226389 [asm] : jlink tests fail; asm has wrong understanding of new bytecodes

[Mandy Chung]

I am not aware we imported any ASM test.  At this time I concerned the 
lworld
development.  If jlink switched to use a different bytecode library, we
would have a test reproducing the issue.  It's okay to follow up the test
separately.

Mandy

On 6/21/19 7:40 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
> Hi Mandy,
>
> An ASM test would be more appropriate;  jlink itself doesn't much care 
> about the classes.
> The particular test that was failing was one of the Strip debug tests.
>
> Where are the ASM tests?
>
> Thanks, Roger
>
>
> On 6/20/19 7:24 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
>> I assume you run into the jlink issues with JDK using the inline class.
>> It's good to add a new test that creates a module with inline class
>> and invoke jlink to produce an image.
>>
>> Mandy
>>
>> On 6/20/19 11:34 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I discovered that the visiting of the new opcodes was not correct. 
>>> It skipped over them correctly
>>> but did not visit each opcode.
>>> The 'default' opcode argument is a type name and so should call the 
>>> visitTypeInsn method.
>>> The "withfield' opcode argument is a field ref (class and name) so 
>>> should call visitFieldInsn.
>>> And the INLINE prefixes are dropped.
>>>
>>> Webrev:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-asm-8226389-4/index.html
>>>
>>> Thanks, Roger
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/20/19 1:38 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
>>>> Looks okay.  The INLINE_* prefix is not necessary to me and matching
>>>> the JVMS opcode names makes sense.
>>>>
>>>> Mandy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6/19/19 10:57 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
>>>>> Hi Mandy,
>>>>>
>>>>> Webrev:
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-asm-8226389-2/
>>>>>
>>>>> A more robust version that computes the necessary offsets of the 
>>>>> ASM_ opcodes
>>>>> to relocate them to the unused indexes above the new WithField 
>>>>> opcode.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, Roger
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/19/19 12:22 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/19/19 7:47 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
>>>>>>> Please review a patch to asm to correctly recognize the Valhalla 
>>>>>>> defined bytecodes for defaultvalue and withfield.
>>>>>>> (The jlink tests that read and write classfiles were failing).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Webrev:
>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-asm-8226389/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Label::resolve method depends on the assumption that IFEQ ... JSR 
>>>>>> can be changed to ASM_IFEQ to ASM_JSR.   It seems that the 
>>>>>> xxx_DELTA  needs to be adjusted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mandy
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>