JDK-8000780 : make Zero build and run with JDK8
  • Type: Bug
  • Component: hotspot
  • Sub-Component: compiler
  • Priority: P4
  • Status: Resolved
  • Resolution: Fixed
  • CPU: other
  • Submitted: 2012-10-11
  • Updated: 2013-09-04
  • Resolved: 2012-10-29
The Version table provides details related to the release that this issue/RFE will be addressed.

Unresolved : Release in which this issue/RFE will be addressed.
Resolved: Release in which this issue/RFE has been resolved.
Fixed : Release in which this issue/RFE has been fixed. The release containing this fix may be available for download as an Early Access Release or a General Availability Release.

To download the current JDK release, click here.
JDK 7 JDK 8 Other
7u40Fixed 8Fixed hs24Fixed
Related Reports
Relates :  
Description
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2012-October/006862.html

Hello,

In the recent weeks I worked on the Zero interpreter, to get it to build
and run with JDK8, and in particular with the latest changes that came
from mlvm (meth-lazy). The following webrev applies to hsx/hotspot-main:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rkennke/zerojdk8/webrev.00/

A few notes on the patch:
- Some makefile changes have been necessary to get it to build at all.
- A bunch of stub functions needed to be added to make the compiler
happy, they should not be called though.
- Most of the changes are related to JSR292 stuff, in particular the
added invokehandle handler, and the changes to invokedynamic resulting
from how the constant pool entry has changed (e.g. method is now in f1).
- A lot of code relating to JSR292 could be removed because most of the
logic has been moved to the (Java) lambda forms.
- A few native methods have been added (MH.invokeBasic(),
MH.linkToVirtual(), MH.linkToStatic() MH.linkToSpecial()).

With those changes it's possible to build the Zero-JDK with itself, and
run the JSR292 related jtreg testcases. I did not (yet) attempt to run a
TCK or such, this would have to wait until all this gets backported to
JDK7 anyway, and I wanted to get some feedback on the changes first.

So what do you think?

And what are the next steps to (hopefully) get those changes committed?
I guess I need a bug-ID and formal review ?

And in case this is not the correct mailing list, please fwd to and/or
CC the correct list.

Thanks and kind regards,
Roman