Issue | Fix Version | Assignee | Priority | Status | Resolution | Resolved In Build |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
JDK-2123741 | 5.0u4 | Daniel Daugherty | P3 | Resolved | Fixed | b02 |
###@###.### 2004-08-17
This assertion fails in the following NSK tests:
nsk/jvmti/scenarios/hotswap/HS101/hs101t004
nsk/jvmti/scenarios/hotswap/HS101/hs101t006
Here are the two analysis report entries:
New JVMTI_QUICKLOOK failures (from 2004.08.03)
nsk/jvmti/scenarios/hotswap/HS101/hs101t004
This test failed on Solaris SPARC-64 and Solaris X86 Server VMs
due to the following assertion failure:
Internal Error (src/share/vm/oops/cpCacheOop.hpp, 296)
assert(0 <= i && i < length(),"index out of bounds")
Update: I found the following two bugs with the same assert()
failure:
5065314 3/4 ShouldNotReachHere in xmlstream
-XX:+PrintOptoAssembly -XX:CompileThreshold=2
5065316 3/4 Running with -XX:+CIPrintMethodCodes and
-XX:CompileThreshold=2 crashes
I've pinged John Rose about the failure, but no response yet.
Update: Here's John's response:
The assert will happen whenever a garbage constant pool
index is retrieved from the bytecode stream. This in turn
often happens because a methodOop is moved by the GC and
the interpreter keeps some sort of dangling pointer at the
old address. If you trace back in a core file, you might
find that the offending value of 'i' is two bytes out of
the middle of a pointer, or some other random thing.
Update: based on John's response, I think we have a different bug
than the two I mentioned above.
Update: This test has the following failure distribution from
2004.07.30 -> 2004.08.09:
1 ClientVM-comp-Solsparc
3 ClientVM-comp-solx86
3 ServerVM-comp-64BITLINUX-AMD64
4 ServerVM-comp-64BITSOLSPARC
1 ServerVM-comp-linux-i386
5 ServerVM-comp-solx86
New JVMTI_QUICKLOOK failures (from 2004.08.16)
* nsk/jvmti/scenarios/hotswap/HS101/hs101t006
This test failed the following assertion on Solaris SPARC-64
Server VM:
Internal Error (src/share/vm/oops/cpCacheOop.hpp, 296
Error: assert(0 <= i && i < length(),"index out of bounds")
This is the same error that we see with hs101t004 (see below).
======================================================================
This bug is also observed in the attached many.zip program which does not crash but gives incorrect results when run on "ntk" a Solaris Opteron box --
98 WS_C - ntk: tests/redefmany] /java/re/jdk/1.5.0/promoted/fcs/b64/binaries/solaris-i586/bin/java
-agentlib:test test
encourageCompilation
foo99
encourageCompilation
99 WS_C - ntk: tests/redefmany] /java/re/jdk/1.5.0/promoted/fcs/b64/binaries/solaris-i586/bin/java
-agentlib:test test
encourageCompilation
foo99
encourageCompilation
Wrong value returned by static function 4, redefinition 1, cmd 1, expected 305419896, got 305419897
Wrong value returned by static function 6, redefinition 1, cmd 1, expected 305419896, got 305419897
100 WS_C - ntk: tests/redefmany] /java/re/jdk/1.5.0/promoted/fcs/b64/binaries/solaris-i586/bin/java -agentlib:test test
encourageCompilation
foo99
encourageCompilation
Wrong value returned by static function 0, redefinition 1, cmd 1, expected 305419896, got 305419898
Wrong value returned by static function 4, redefinition 1, cmd 1, expected 305419896, got 305419897
Wrong value returned by static function 5, redefinition 1, cmd 1, expected 305419896, got 305419897
Wrong value returned by static function 6, redefinition 1, cmd 1, expected 305419896, got 305419897
101 WS_C - ntk: tests/redefmany] /java/re/jdk/1.5.0/promoted/fcs/b64/binaries/solaris-i586/bin/java -agentlib:test test
encourageCompilation
foo99
encourageCompilation
Wrong value returned by static function 4, redefinition 1, cmd 1, expected 305419896, got 305419897
Wrong value returned by static function 6, redefinition 1, cmd 1, expected 305419896, got 305419897
102 WS_C - ntk: tests/redefmany] /java/re/jdk/1.5.0/promoted/fcs/b64/binaries/solaris-i586/bin/java -agentlib:test test
encourageCompilation
foo99
encourageCompilation
103 WS_C - ntk: tests/redefmany] /java/re/jdk/1.5.0/promoted/fcs/b64/binaries/solaris-i586/bin/java -agentlib:test test
encourageCompilation
foo99
encourageCompilation
Wrong value returned by static function 1, redefinition 1, cmd 1, expected 305419896, got 305419897
Wrong value returned by static function 5, redefinition 1, cmd 1, expected 305419896, got 305419897
Wrong value returned by static function 6, redefinition 1, cmd 1, expected 305419896, got 305419897
-Robert
###@###.### 10/28/04 04:01 GMT
This assertion failed in the gc_baseline nightly testing
for
nsk/jvmti/scenarios/hotswap/HS101/hs101t005
on 02/20/2005 in the server, solx86, ParallelGC
###@###.### 2005-2-23 04:53:34 GMT
- backported by
-
JDK-2123741 hotswap fires assert(0 <= i && i < length(),"index out of bounds")
- Resolved
- duplicates
-
JDK-5063021 protection domain not used in redefine classes
- Closed
- relates to
-
JDK-5002251 potential bug with annotations and class file evolution
- Resolved
-
JDK-8155951 VM crash in nsk/jvmti/RedefineClasses/StressRedefine: assert failed: Corrupted constant pool
- Resolved
-
JDK-6780119 hs104t002 fires assert(0 <= i && i < length(),"index out of bounds")
- Closed
-
JDK-6173560 constant pool of redefined class should be safe and high-performance -- make it append only
- Resolved
-
JDK-6272221 assertion failure in ContiguousSpace::block_size after massive number of RedefineClasses
- Resolved
-
JDK-6394084 Redefine class can't handle addition of 64 bit constants in JDK1.5.0_04
- Resolved
-
JDK-6173565 RedefineClasses must be fast even when hundreds or thousands of classes are redefined
- Closed
-
JDK-8155673 Remove constant pool merging for class redefinition
- Closed