[Bug java/5537] Error compiling simple bytecode with jsr

[Bug java/5537] Error compiling simple bytecode with jsr

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-10-14 14:16 -------
New error message on the mainline:
A.java: In class `A':
A.java: In method `A.main(java.lang.String[])':
A.java:8: error: stack underflow

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Last reconfirmed|2004-06-06 01:37:12         |2004-10-14 14:16:31
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5537

[Bug java/5537] Error compiling simple bytecode with jsr

[aph at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From aph at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-10-21 13:40 -------
We're merging the new verifier on the gcj-abi-2-dev-branch.

Once that is done, this bug should be fixed.


-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |aph at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5537

[Bug java/5537] Error compiling simple bytecode with jsr

[rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1298 bytes --]


------- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-01-10 11:26 -------
Now that the BC-ABI work has been merged, the testcase no longer
gives an error when compiled with "-findirect-dispatch".

However, it ICEs when compiled without!

Relevant info:

Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
verify_jvm_instructions (jcf=0xb75f5500, byte_ops=0x87adcb4 "¨", length=13)
    at /home/ranmath/src/gcc/gcc-20050110/gcc/java/verify.c:712
712             if (TREE_CODE (tmp) != TREE_LIST)
(gdb) bt
#0  verify_jvm_instructions (jcf=0xb75f5500, byte_ops=0x87adcb4 "¨", length=13)
    at /home/ranmath/src/gcc/gcc-20050110/gcc/java/verify.c:712
#1  0x0807de9d in expand_byte_code (jcf=0xb75f5500, method=0x87a85f8)
    at /home/ranmath/src/gcc/gcc-20050110/gcc/java/expr.c:2960
#2  0x0808c774 in parse_class_file ()
    at /home/ranmath/src/gcc/gcc-20050110/gcc/java/jcf-parse.c:919
#3  0x0808ec8a in java_parse_file (set_yydebug=0)
    at /home/ranmath/src/gcc/gcc-20050110/gcc/java/jcf-parse.c:1284
#4  0x082e03a0 in toplev_main (argc=142247416, argv=0xbffface4)
    at /home/ranmath/src/gcc/gcc-20050110/gcc/toplev.c:996
#5  0x0038579d in __libc_start_main () from /lib/tls/libc.so.6
#6  0x08049b71 in _start ()



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5537

[Bug java/5537] Error compiling simple bytecode with jsr

[aph at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From aph at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-01-10 11:33 -------
It's extremely unlikely that anyone will fix bugs in the old verifier.

However, it is still used for the non- indirect dispatch case.  I don't know if
it's possible to use the new verifier for that: probably not.  It certainly
could be done.


-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|aph at gcc dot gnu dot org  |
   Last reconfirmed|2004-10-14 14:16:31         |2005-01-10 11:33:53
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5537

[Bug java/5537] Error compiling simple bytecode with jsr

[rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-01-10 11:59 -------
In that case, we should either make -findirect-dispatch the default
or try to fix this bug. Users will otherwise unnecessarily be bitten
by such old verifier bugs. I'm willing to try hunting this particular
bug down if -findirect-dispatch can't be made the default just yet.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5537

[Bug java/5537] Error compiling simple bytecode with jsr

[bonniot at users dot sf dot net]

------- Additional Comments From bonniot at users dot sf dot net  2005-03-02 00:11 -------
What's the take on this bug? Can indirect-dispatch be made the default in the
foreseable future? Can the old verifier be fixed?

I'm now running nightly builds of gcj on the Nice compiler testsuite (1250
testcases). There are currently 11 failures, and 4 seem to be instances of this
verifier bug. So fixing this would be a great improvement.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5537

[Bug java/5537] Error compiling simple bytecode with jsr

[rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-03-02 07:54 -------
(In reply to comment #13)
> What's the take on this bug? Can indirect-dispatch be made the default in the
> foreseable future? Can the old verifier be fixed?
> 
> I'm now running nightly builds of gcj on the Nice compiler testsuite (1250
> testcases). There are currently 11 failures, and 4 seem to be instances of this
> verifier bug. So fixing this would be a great improvement.

See:

  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2005-q1/msg00568.html

which makes even the non-indirect-dispatch case use the new
shiny verifier.

It definitely fixes this PR and a whole lot of other verifier
bugs. Can you test it with your application too? (Thanks in
advance for doing it.)

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5537

[Bug java/5537] Error compiling simple bytecode with jsr

[daniel dot bonniot at inria dot fr]

------- Additional Comments From daniel dot bonniot at inria dot fr  2005-03-02 10:13 -------
Subject: Re:  Error compiling simple bytecode with jsr


>  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2005-q1/msg00568.html
>
>which makes even the non-indirect-dispatch case use the new
>shiny verifier.
>
>It definitely fixes this PR and a whole lot of other verifier
>bugs. Can you test it with your application too? (Thanks in
>advance for doing it.)
>  
>

OK, I patched my tree, I'll report the results (fixes and regressions) 
after the next build.

In your list message, you mention only one fix in the gcc testsuite, 
pr13107. Does this mean pr5537 is not fixed, or it does not have a testcase?



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5537

[Bug java/5537] Error compiling simple bytecode with jsr

[rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-03-02 13:09 -------
> OK, I patched my tree, I'll report the results (fixes and regressions) 
> after the next build.

Thanks.


> In your list message, you mention only one fix in the gcc testsuite, 
> pr13107. Does this mean pr5537 is not fixed, or it does not have a testcase?

The latter. We do not have any bytecode verification tests
in the libjava testsuite (yet). We use the Mauve verifier testsuite instead.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5537

[Bug java/5537] Error compiling simple bytecode with jsr

[daniel dot bonniot at inria dot fr]

------- Additional Comments From daniel dot bonniot at inria dot fr  2005-03-02 13:42 -------
Subject: Re:  Error compiling simple bytecode with jsr

I just finished running my testsuite with gcj/new_verifier. The results are 
very good:

6 fixes (only 5 failures instead of 11 previously)
0 regressions
overhead is small (around 1% of user time)

I say: go for it!

Great work of whoever worked on this new verifier.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5537

[Bug java/5537] Error compiling simple bytecode with jsr

[rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-03-09 09:04 -------
Now that the new verifier has been enabled, this bug has been fixed.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.1.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5537