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

(0.37) Fixing wrong address elementSize calculation #16946

Conversation

IBMJimmyk
Copy link
Contributor

@IBMJimmyk IBMJimmyk commented Mar 17, 2023

generateReportFieldAccessOutlinedInstructions incorrectly believes that when it is run on a awrtbar/awrtbari node and compressed refs is active, it is being passed a compressed object address to pass into a call to the VM. In reality, it is being given an uncompressed object address and the VM is expecting an uncompressed value. This causes a problem where a stw instruction is used to store a 64 bit value.

This change removes the special case handling of a compressed ref value for calculating elementSize. By default, convertTypeToSize already returns the correct value of 8 for 64 bit (and 4 for 32 bit).

Issue: #16750

Port of #16925

generateReportFieldAccessOutlinedInstructions incorrectly believes that when it
is run on a awrtbar/awrtbari node and compressed refs is active, it is being
passed a compressed object address to pass into a call to the VM. In reality,
it is being given an uncompressed object address and the VM is expecting an
uncompressed value. This causes a problem where a stw instruction is used to
store a 64 bit value.

This change removes the special case handling of a compressed ref value for
calculating elementSize. By default, convertTypeToSize already returns the
correct value of 8 for 64 bit (and 4 for 32 bit).

Issue: eclipse-openj9#16750
Signed-off-by: jimmyk <jimmyk@ca.ibm.com>
@pshipton pshipton changed the title Fixing wrong address elementSize calculation (0.37) Fixing wrong address elementSize calculation Mar 17, 2023
@pshipton pshipton merged commit 5a17282 into eclipse-openj9:v0.37.0-release Mar 18, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants