On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 09:00:19 GMT, Anton Artemov <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hi, please consider the following changes: >> >> This is a fix for `sp > unextended_sp` state, which can happen when >> interpreted -> interpreted calls go through a method handle linker method. >> >> On x86 the issue is addressed by incrementing `r13` register value when the >> `memberName `appendix arg is being popped out. Additionally, some changes in >> JVMTI - related method `_remove_activation_preserving_args_entry` have to be >> done to reflect the changes. >> >> On aarch64 the issue is addressed by keeping a 16-bytes aligned snapshot of >> the expression stack pointer (eps) in `r19` instead of the regular stack >> pointer, and an increment of that register value when the `MemberName >> `appendix arg is being popped out. Although due to the 16-bytes alignment >> the result of this increment is wiped out immediately, I think it is good to >> be consistent with x86 and have instructions in place. >> >> Tested in tiers 1 - 7. > > Anton Artemov has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a > merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes > brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains four additional > commits since the last revision: > > - Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into > JDK-8302745-unextended-sp-less-than-sp > - 8302745: Don't touch ARM code. > - 8302745: Addressed reviewer's comments. > - 8302745: Fix for sp > unextended_sp for x86 and aarch64. src/hotspot/cpu/x86/templateInterpreterGenerator_x86.cpp line 1558: > 1556: __ jcc(Assembler::zero, L_done); > 1557: > 1558: __ movptr(Address(rbx, 0), rax); I scratched my head trying to figure out what rbx is here. It turns out it is the sender_sp from remove_activation. And rsp here is based on last_sp. Previously, rbx and rsp would be the same because last_sp and sender_sp would be the same, as set in prepare_to_jump_from_interpreted. But if this PR changes the meaning of sender_sp, rbx will have the wrong value here. It should be using rsp here, I believe. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/29744#discussion_r2935000602
