[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openjdk-hotspot-runtime-dev
Subject:    RE: RFR(M): 8190285: s390: Some java boolean checks are not correct
From:       "Doerr, Martin" <martin.doerr () sap ! com>
Date:       2017-10-28 16:33:03
Message-ID: 7d5e0cad6e544a8d990440d17a8a2915 () sap ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi Coleen,

thanks for reviewing. We have only tested that the narrowing in early return doesn't \
break anything. It should be possible to test it by using a modified Java debugger, \
but I haven't tried that. Anyway, I think the narrowing should be there since \
ForceEarlyReturnInt can be used for any of these types and I couldn't find a check in \
the JVMTI implementation.

Best regards,
Martin


-----Original Message-----
From: hotspot-runtime-dev [mailto:hotspot-runtime-dev-bounces@openjdk.java.net] On \
                Behalf Of coleen.phillimore@oracle.com
Sent: Freitag, 27. Oktober 2017 20:49
To: hotspot-runtime-dev@openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: RFR(M): 8190285: s390: Some java boolean checks are not correct


Hi This looks good, but do you have a test case for the early return 
case?   Many of the platforms are missing the narrow call.

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mdoerr/8190285_s390_jbool/webrev.00/src/hotspot/cpu/s390/templateInterpreterGenerator_s390.cpp.udiff.html


Thanks,
Coleen

On 10/27/17 10:23 AM, Doerr, Martin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> the current s390 implementation misses a couple of small fixes which exist on other \
> platforms. 
> Please review:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mdoerr/8190285_s390_jbool/webrev.00/
> 
> Best regards,
> Martin
> 


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]