RFR (L) : 8014013 : CallInfo structure no longer accurately reports the result of a LinkResolver operation

[John Rose]

Yikes; those developer flags are very likely to have their own bugs if run through big test suites.

— John

On Sep 12, 2013, at 8:17 PM, David Chase <david.r.chase at oracle.com> wrote:

> I see failures, but they are not null pointer exceptions, they are instead something to do with memory leaks
> and resource marks.  I would examine the hs_err files, except that our glorious test harness didn't seem to think
> they were worth preserving, so they're gone now.  I'm going to go looking for options.
> 
> David
> 
> On 2013-09-12, at 5:49 PM, Karen Kinnear <KAREN.KINNEAR at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
>> David,
>> 
>> I will do a full review tomorrow.
>> A couple of quick questions:
>> 
>> 1) In linkResolver.cpp, in resolve_field, I would have expected the if !check_access to just skip
>> the check_field_accessibility. I was surprised to see it also skipping other error checks. Is there
>> a reason for that? (I get the loader constraint tests being skipped), but what about for example
>> initializing the class?
>> 
>> 2) I still see // use a non-null placeholder on line 1059
>> 
>> 3) If the non-null was for debug printing - you want to run a quick test with maybe one of  mlvm tests? with your favorite flags:
>> vm set would include:
>>  -XX:+TraceMethodHandles -XX:+Verbose
>> -XX:+ShowHiddenFrames
>> -XX:+TraceInvokeDynamic
>> -XX:+PrintMethodHandleStubs
>> 
>> and the favorite jdk 292 flags - 
>> -Djava.lang.invoke.MethodHandle.DUMP_CLASS_FILES
>> -Djava.lang.invoke.MethodHandle.DEBUG_NAMES
>> -Djava.lang.invoke.MethodHandle.TRACE_INTERPRETER
>> -Djava.lang.invoke.MethodHandle.TRACE_METHOD_LINKAGE
>> 
>> thanks,
>> Karen
>> 
>> On Sep 11, 2013, at 10:33 PM, David Chase wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> New webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~drchase/8014013/webrev.05/
>>> 
>>> Retested post changes:
>>> vm.quick.testlist
>>> defmeth
>>> jdk/test/java/util
>>> jdk/test/jdk/lambda
>>> 
>>> jprt to confirm compilable across all platforms (this has been an issue)
>>> 
>>> On 2013-09-10, at 10:17 AM, Karen Kinnear <KAREN.KINNEAR at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Good.  At this level, "static" linkage is the kind of linkage used always for both invokestatic and invokespecial, and sometimes for invokevirtual and invokeinterface (in some corner cases).
>>>> Overuse of the term static - a bit confusing. Thanks for the explanation, perhaps the comment could clarify.
>>> 
>>> Comment now clarifies.
>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 6. linkResolver.cpp
>>>>>>> CallInfo::CallInfo:
>>>>>>> Why are _selected_klass and _selected_method set to resolved_klass and resolve_method?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Mainly (I think) to prevent print statements from SEGV-ing.
>>>> Please change this back - and don't set the information if it is not accurate. Please fix the print statements
>>>> to handle null. Null provides meaningful information. If you are using the information as the selected
>>>> klass and selected method, I would like to understand cases in which you do that, that are handled outside
>>>> of the LinkResolver please, since this would imply perhaps different behavior for invokedynamic options
>>>> and I would really like to understand those.
>>> 
>>> Changed back.
>>> 
>> 
>