On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 10:20:21 GMT, Robbin Ehn <r...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> > > > > @rkennke I must be missing something. In aarch64, why do we handle the > > > > non-symmetric-unlock case in interpreter, but not in C1/C2? There, we > > > > just seem to pop whatever is on top. > > > > > > > > > C1 and C2 don't allow assymmetric locking. If that ever happens, they > > > would refuse to compile the method. We should probably check that this > > > assumption holds true when popping the top entry in an #ASSERT block. > > > > > > Thanks for clarifying. Yes, asserting that would make sense. > > FYI: I'm trying to convince folks that JVMS should be allowed to enforce > asymmetric locking. We think most people don't know they will be stuck in > interpreter, unintended. What was discussed latest was to diagnose and warn > about this behavior as a first step. Sounds good. Just to be clear, you mean enforce symmetric locking? resp. forbid asymmetric locking? ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/10907
