Skip to content
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

8285301: C2: assert(!requires_atomic_access) failed: can't ensure atomicity #454

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

GoeLin
Copy link
Member

@GoeLin GoeLin commented Jun 9, 2022

I backport this for parity with 17.0.5-oracle.

I had to do some simple resolves in barrierSetC2.cpp


Progress

  • Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
  • Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

  • JDK-8285301: C2: assert(!requires_atomic_access) failed: can't ensure atomicity

Reviewers

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk17u-dev pull/454/head:pull/454
$ git checkout pull/454

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/454
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk17u-dev pull/454/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 454

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 454

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk17u-dev/pull/454.diff

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

bridgekeeper bot commented Jun 9, 2022

👋 Welcome back goetz! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

@openjdk openjdk bot changed the title Backport 0a4a6403bbdfa7a9f632dbf625435d9aaf04074c 8285301: C2: assert(!requires_atomic_access) failed: can't ensure atomicity Jun 9, 2022
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jun 9, 2022

This backport pull request has now been updated with issue from the original commit.

@openjdk openjdk bot added backport rfr labels Jun 9, 2022
@mlbridge
Copy link

mlbridge bot commented Jun 9, 2022

Webrevs

Copy link
Contributor

@TheRealMDoerr TheRealMDoerr left a comment

Backport LGTM. Did you omit TestAlwaysAtomicAccesses.java intentionally?

@GoeLin
Copy link
Member Author

GoeLin commented Jun 13, 2022

Sorry, I missed the test. Fixed.

Copy link
Contributor

@TheRealMDoerr TheRealMDoerr left a comment

Looks like a clean backport, now.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the clean label Jun 13, 2022
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jun 13, 2022

@GoeLin 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:

8285301: C2: assert(!requires_atomic_access) failed: can't ensure atomicity

Reviewed-by: mdoerr

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 9 new commits pushed to the master branch:

  • cb88133: 8287073: NPE from CgroupV2Subsystem.getInstance()
  • 292d90d: 8178969: [TESTBUG] Wrong reporting of gc/g1/humongousObjects/TestHeapCounters test.
  • a081e4a: 8283441: C2: segmentation fault in ciMethodBlocks::make_block_at(int)
  • aa3d2f7: 8172065: javax/swing/JTree/4908142/bug4908142.java The selected index should be "aad"
  • 66cdd6e: 8284694: Avoid evaluating SSLAlgorithmConstraints twice
  • 92d617f: 8159694: HiDPI, Unity, java/awt/dnd/DropTargetEnterExitTest/MissedDragExitTest.java
  • 667582d: 8285820: C2: LCM prioritizes locally dependent CreateEx nodes over projections after 8270090
  • 2da3752: 8270090: C2: LCM may prioritize CheckCastPP nodes over projections
  • 7023eef: 8287741: Fix of JDK-8287107 (unused cgv1 freezer controller) was incomplete

Please see this link for an up-to-date comparison between the source branch of this pull request and the master branch.
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 master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

@openjdk openjdk bot added ready and removed ready labels Jun 13, 2022
@GoeLin
Copy link
Member Author

GoeLin commented Jun 21, 2022

/integrate

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jun 21, 2022

Going to push as commit 7975c0a.
Since your change was applied there have been 28 commits pushed to the master branch:

  • 6f4c270: 8285696: AlgorithmConstraints:permits not throwing IllegalArgumentException when 'alg' is null
  • 4b25717: 8285398: Cache the results of constraint checks
  • e4d1d62: 8284675: "jpackage.exe" creates application launcher without Windows Application Manfiest
  • 4dd34b7: 8286429: jpackageapplauncher build fails intermittently in Tier[45]
  • 29579f4: 8273115: CountedLoopEndNode::stride_con crash in debug build with -XX:+TraceLoopOpts
  • ed71536: 8282640: Create a test for JDK-4740761
  • 1f84775: 8281569: Create tests for Frame.setMinimumSize() method
  • 66ccd22: 8282538: PKCS11 tests fail on CentOS Stream 9
  • f0dd322: Merge
  • 84ac0f0: 8285515: (dc) DatagramChannel.disconnect fails with "Invalid argument" on macOS 12.4
  • ... and 18 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk17u-dev/compare/0d0e4fbc7067f1f7f0ed6feceed771be03974488...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the integrated label Jun 21, 2022
@openjdk openjdk bot closed this Jun 21, 2022
@openjdk openjdk bot removed ready rfr labels Jun 21, 2022
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jun 21, 2022

@GoeLin Pushed as commit 7975c0a.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.

@GoeLin GoeLin deleted the goetz_backport_8285301 branch Jun 21, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
backport clean integrated
2 participants