On Fri, 28 Nov 2025 08:23:27 GMT, Tobias Hartmann <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Oh.. realized that I should had checked JBS.. thanks @ascarpino for >> resolving the bug I caused! At least its just the option.. whew. >> >>> @dholmes-ora Hi David, need some help with this please, don't have access >>> to an ARM system to reproduce (or the ARM expertise).. could you point me >>> at the failing job if thats available? Or some log if not? >>> >>> * Is it an issue with the options (i.e. `-XX:UseAVX=2` perhaps). I probably >>> should had added `-XX:+IgnoreUnrecognizedVMOptions` to it.. >>> * Otherwise, I am stumped.. the test case isn't architecture-specific.. it >>> calls two methods (one of which is annotated as an intrinsic..) and expects >>> them to return the same value.. i.e. Java and Intrinsic version should >>> behave the same.. >>> * Only thing I can think of.. The ARM implementation took some shortcuts in >>> name of optimization. This can be entirely valid if the code calling the >>> intrinsics never should get some specific value (-ranges). i.e. the tests >>> RNG be further restricted.. >>> * Otherwise.. is it possible its a bug in the ARM intrinsic? > > This caused a regression: > [JDK-8372703](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8372703). @vpaprotsk Could > you please have a look? Thanks. @TobiHartmann looking! - Havent been able to reproduce yet (and folks with machine access I need are away today, US holiday) - From the first glance, the error is about code size (and this intrinsic is indeed large..). But that shouldnt be platform-dependent, iirc.. except I see `enum platform_dependent_constants` is no longer just a simple static sum of ints.. hmm. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28136#issuecomment-3589866931
