Don't assume lockword of class is at index 0 #20642
Conversation
theresa-m
added
comp:vm
project:valhalla
| @@ -1369,7 +1369,7 @@ Java_java_lang_invoke_MethodHandleNatives_resolve( | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| if ((0 != target) && ((0 != vmindex) || J9_ARE_ANY_BITS_SET(flags, MN_IS_METHOD | MN_IS_CONSTRUCTOR))) { | |||
| if ((NULL != new_clazz) && ((0 != vmindex) || J9_ARE_ANY_BITS_SET(flags, MN_IS_METHOD | MN_IS_CONSTRUCTOR))) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we limit this change only to affect instance field in project Valhalla.
|
Adding @TobiAjila as reviewer. This change is removing the assumption that visible instance field starts at offset != 0. Value type and example class in #20386 (comment) could have its visible instance field start at offset 0. |
theresa-m
force-pushed
the
vt_lockword
branch
from
85b19e5
to
1a1be93
Compare
|
Jenkins test sanity,extended xlinuxval jdknext |
|
jenkins test sanity.functional win jdk8 |
theresa-m
force-pushed
the
vt_lockword
branch
from
1a1be93
to
c9599cd
Compare
| #if defined(J9VM_OPT_VALHALLA_VALUE_TYPES) | ||
| /* In project Valhalla fields may start at offset 0. */ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should be restructured so there's only one if statement, not an extra { that would be unmatched, and eliminate duplication of the common subexpression:
if (
#if defined(J9VM_OPT_VALHALLA_VALUE_TYPES)
/* In project Valhalla fields may start at offset 0. */
(NULL != new_clazz)
#else /* defined(J9VM_OPT_VALHALLA_VALUE_TYPES) */
(0 != target)
#endif /* defined(J9VM_OPT_VALHALLA_VALUE_TYPES) */
&& ((0 != vmindex) || J9_ARE_ANY_BITS_SET(flags, MN_IS_METHOD | MN_IS_CONSTRUCTOR))
) {There was a problem hiding this comment.
I updated the change to match this.
theresa-m
force-pushed
the
vt_lockword
branch
from
c9599cd
to
cd7c592
Compare
With valuetypes it's possible for the lockword not to be the first field. Signed-off-by: Theresa Mammarella <[email protected]>
theresa-m
force-pushed
the
vt_lockword
branch
from
cd7c592
to
c7c6a13
Compare
|
Any more comments on this change? |
@keithc-ca ^^ |
With valuetypes it's possible for the lockword not to be the first field.
Unblocks #20386