|
Hi Jc,
Thank you a lot for reviewing!
On 11/12/18 09:35, JC Beyler wrote:
Hi Serguei,
The fix looks good (though I never like commented out code,
why do we not just remove the lines and add a simple comment:
"Due to JDK-8213525, we do not test X,Y, and Z because of
stability isssues").
I also normally do not like commented out code.
In this particular case, I considered commented out lines as part of
comment.
They explain what is removed better than any words. :)
Okay, I've removed these lines with the comment.
But the underlying question I have that is not really
explained is : "why is it failing?"; is the spec not specific
in these cases? is it a bug in the compiler/runtime that is
not yet fixed to conform to the spec? I ask because I would
imagine that it might be something we would like to fix, no?
No.
There is no information from the JIT compiler to return errors when
the LVT is absent.
Moreover, different compilers, modes or tiers differently represent
local values that are out of scope.
Thanks,
Serguei
Please, review a fix for:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8213525
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sspitsyn/webrevs/2018/8213525-unstable-test.1/
Summary:
A couple of the checks in new unit test developed for JDK-8080406
is not stable.
It is expected that the type of the local intLoc
returned by the StackValueCollection
has
to be T_CONFLICT as it is out of scope at the point
where the testLocals() is called:
int staticMeth(byte byteArg, Object objArg, double dblArg, int intArg) {
testLocals(Thread.currentThread());
{
int intLoc = 9999;
intArg = intLoc;
}
return intArg;
}
But sometimes the type T_INT is returned instead of T_CONFLICT.
The fix is to disable the checks that can fail because of it.
Thanks,
Serguei
--
|
