RFR 8168663: Nashorn: ant testng tests doesn't support external java options

Hi, Please review http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sdama/8168663/webrev.00/ for https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8168663 Added run.test.jvmargs.external property so that we can pass jvm options for complete test run as below. ant -Drun.test.jvmargs.external="-XX:+UseSerialGC

Re: Review request for JDK-8170594: >>>=0 generates invalid bytecode for BaseNode LHS

+1 On 01/12/16, 6:49 PM, Attila Szegedi wrote: Please review JDK-8170594 ">>>=0 generates invalid bytecode for BaseNode LHS" at for Thanks, Attila.

Re: Review request for JDK-8170594: >>>=0 generates invalid bytecode for BaseNode LHS

+1 > On Dec 1, 2016, at 9:19 AM, Attila Szegedi wrote: > > Please review JDK-8170594 ">>>=0 generates invalid bytecode for BaseNode LHS" > at for > > > Thanks, >

Review request for JDK-8170594: >>>=0 generates invalid bytecode for BaseNode LHS

Please review JDK-8170594 ">>>=0 generates invalid bytecode for BaseNode LHS" at for Thanks, Attila.

Re: java.lang.VerifyError: Inconsistent stackmap frames at branch target

Okay, I tracked this down to an incorrect optimization in code generator for when you use >>=0 to coerce to an uint32 :-( There is a special case for exactly this usage, where the right-hand-side operand is a literal 0, so we avoid emitting a no-op “ICONST_0; IUSHR” bytecode sequence. It

Re: Error Stack Column number

Sorry, disregard the message below, it was meant for a different e-mail thread :-) > On 01 Dec 2016, at 13:53, Attila Szegedi wrote: > > Okay, I tracked this down to an incorrect optimization in code generator for > when you use >>=0 to coerce to an uint32 :-( > > There

Re: RFR 8170565: JSObject call() is passed undefined for the argument 'thiz'

+1 > On 01 Dec 2016, at 13:48, Sundararajan Athijegannathan > wrote: > > Good catch Hannes! Please review the updated webrev : > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8170565/webrev.01/ > > PS. Had to use Function.prototype.call.call to pass undefined

Re: Error Stack Column number

Okay, I tracked this down to an incorrect optimization in code generator for when you use >>=0 to coerce to an uint32 :-( There is a special case for exactly this usage, where the right-hand-side operand is a literal 0, so we avoid emitting a no-op “ICONST_0; IUSHR” bytecode sequence. It

Re: RFR 8170565: JSObject call() is passed undefined for the argument 'thiz'

+1 > On Dec 1, 2016, at 8:48 AM, Sundararajan Athijegannathan > wrote: > > Good catch Hannes! Please review the updated webrev : > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8170565/webrev.01/ > > PS. Had to use Function.prototype.call.call to pass undefined

Re: RFR 8170565: JSObject call() is passed undefined for the argument 'thiz'

+1 Nice solution, of course much simpler than what I proposed below :) Hannes > Am 01.12.2016 um 13:48 schrieb Sundararajan Athijegannathan > : > > Good catch Hannes! Please review the updated webrev : >

Re: java.lang.VerifyError: Inconsistent stackmap frames at branch target

Running with assertions enabled shows that the error is in “this.length >>>=0” expression on line 31. Reducing the testcase to just: (function (p) { if (p) { this.length >>>= 0; // Coerce to uint32. } })(false) also reproduces the problem (at least, the assertion; it will cause a somewhat

Re: RFR 8170565: JSObject call() is passed undefined for the argument 'thiz'

Hi Sundar, The problem with this approach is that it will replace any occurrence of undefined this with the global object. However, this should only occur for scope calls. For example, the following call would see undefined replaced with global: func.call(undefined) This is probably not a