The referenced CR links were incorrect as well.
The correct links:
CR:
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=8007037
https://jbs.oracle.com/bugs/browse/JDK-8007037
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sspitsyn/webrevs/2013/hotspot/8007037-JVMTI-JSR292.1/
Thanks,
Serguei
On 4/1/13 2:29 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Resending this request because the webrev link below is incorrect.
It is correct as you see it but its reference is incorrect when you
click.
This is a correct link (safe to click):
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sspitsyn/webrevs/2013/hotspot/8007037-JVMTI-JSR292.1/
Thanks,
Serguei
On 3/27/13 4:45 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Please, review the hs25 fix below.
Open webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sspitsyn/webrevs/2013/hotspot/8007037-JVMTI-JSR292.1/
CR:
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=8007037
https://jbs.oracle.com/bugs/browse/JDK-8007037
References from INDY bootstrap method specifier operands to CP entries
and back must be correctly merged at class redefinition.
Some background.
An invokedynamic bytecode spec:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jvms/se7/html/jvms-6.html#jvms-6.5.invokedynamic
A invokedynamic instruction has an argument which is an index to the
*Constant Pool* item.
That index must be a symbolic reference to a *call-site specifier*:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jvms/se7/html/jvms-4.html#jvms-4.4.10
A CP item of the type *CONSTANT_InvokeDynamic_inf* has an index into
the *bootstrap method attribute* of the class file:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jvms/se7/html/jvms-4.html#jvms-4.7.21
The *|BootstrapMethods|* attribute elements normally have references
to other *Constant Pool* items.
In VM the *bootstrap method attribute* is represented by the
*operands* array of the *ConstantPool*.
The problem is is that all the force and back cross links between
*ConstantPool* elements
and *operands* array elements must be correctly merged at class
redefinition.
Test coverage:
vm.mlvm, nsk.jvmti, nsk.jdi tests on multiple platforms (32 vs
64-bit too).
The testing looks good so far.
One difficulty is that new vm.mlvm tests are currently failed
because of multiple reasons.
Thanks,
Serguei
