Looks good. Thanks!
- Ioi
On 5/7/18 8:38 PM, Jini George wrote:
Thank you very much, Ioi, for the review and for the clarifications
and help provided offline. I have added the checks for
_nofast_getfield and _nofast_putfield. SA has a bug due to which for
iload, only the base bytecode (iload) gets displayed -- fast_iload and
nofast_iload do not get displayed. JDK-8202693 (SA: clhsdb printall
only displays the base bytecode for iload) has been filed for this. I
would add the test for nofast_iload along with the fix for JDK-8202693.
The modified webrev is at:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jgeorge/8174995/webrev.01/
Thanks,
Jini.
On 4/27/2018 1:54 AM, Ioi Lam wrote:
HI Jini,
[1] "_nofast_aload" should be "_nofast_aload_0": aload and aload_0
are two different bytecodes.
[2] Only the _nofast_aload_0 bytecode is tested. For completeness, do
you think it makes sense to add test cases for these other 3 bytecodes?
_nofast_getfield
_nofast_putfield
_nofast_iload
Thanks
- Ioi
On 4/26/18 11:15 AM, Jini George wrote:
Hello all,
Please review the following proposed fix for the issue:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8174995
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jgeorge/8174995/webrev.00/
Issue: Clhsdb commands like 'where -a', 'printall' would throw an
illegal code assertion failure when CDS is used.
Root cause and proposed fix: SA has been unaware of the new
bytecodes introduced for rewriting at CDS dump time (_nofast*
bytecodes). The fix is to make SA aware of these new _nofast*
bytecodes.
Tests Run and Passed: SA tests on Mach5 (including the tests
modified to test this fix).
Thank you,
Jini.
