-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6.1k
8277102: Dubious PrintCompilation output #6386
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
👋 Welcome back yyang! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into |
@kelthuzadx The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:
When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command. |
fed7e1c
to
e65e749
Compare
// <empty-line> | ||
// Compiled method (c2) 310 463 4 compiler.jvmci.compilerToVM.CompileCodeTestCase$Dummy::staticMethod (1 bytes) | ||
for (int i = 2; i < str2Lines.length; i++) { | ||
Asserts.assertEQ(str2Lines[i], str3Lines[i], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Splitting the entire string by lines seems like a bit of an overhead. What about something like that (not tested)?
int idx = str2.indexOf(System.lineSeparator());
idx = str2.indexOf(System.lineSeparator(), idx + 1);
str2 = str2.substring(idx + 1);
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Doing it by lines will actually provide a more focused error message if there's a problem and I cannot image the overhead matters for a test like this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Right, good point.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks reasonable to me but a second review (@dougxc?) would be good.
/reviewers 2 |
@kelthuzadx This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks. ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details. After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:
You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed. At the time when this comment was updated there had been 55 new commits pushed to the
As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details. ➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the |
@TobiHartmann |
Thanks @TobiHartmann and @dougxc for reviews! |
/integrate |
Going to push as commit 2f0bde1.
Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts. |
@kelthuzadx Pushed as commit 2f0bde1. 💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored. |
The output of PrintCompilation is ill-formed:
This seems related to JDK-8272586, which print timestamp optionally. As #5446 mentioned, printing timestamp would break DisassembleCodeBlobTest.java since it expects disassembling a given nmethod twice to produce the same result. Maybe we should fix DisassembleCodeBlobTest.java.
Progress
Issue
Reviewers
Reviewing
Using
git
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/6386/head:pull/6386
$ git checkout pull/6386
Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/6386
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/6386/head
Using Skara CLI tools
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 6386
View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 6386
Using diff file
Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/6386.diff