On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 22:54:34 GMT, Vladimir Ivanov <vliva...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> This is forked from >> [JDK-8342642](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8342642) and filed as a >> general issue for archived boxed Integer cache when it's recreated at >> runtime. In short, current code drops the entire primitive cache when the >> CDS archived version of the cache is too short. This poses a problem with >> code that uses CDS archived cache instances, since the boxed equality would >> break when comparing the CDS-archived value and the IntegerCache value >> recreated at runtime. >> >> Ioi suggested a fix here: >> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/21672#issuecomment-2434359711. I >> separately arrived to the same idea. This PR implements it. `IntegerCache` >> gets the special treatment, because it is the only cache that can be tuned. >> Other caches just prevent the use of bad archived cache (which I think >> should realistically never happen) without re-creating it. >> >> Unfortunately, I was unable to create a standalone CDS test for this: I >> somehow need to be able to put my own archived `Integer` instance into the >> archive, and I don't clearly see how. I tested this patch with original >> reproducer from [JDK-8342642](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8342642) >> -- and it starts to pass. I don't think we would be able to convert that >> reproducer into a unit test, since >> [JDK-8342642](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8342642) itself would make >> the reproducer ineffective. >> >> Additional testing: >> - [x] macos-aarch64-server-fastdebug, >> [JDK-8342642](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8342642) reproducer now >> passes >> - [x] linux-aarch64-server-fastdebug, `all` > > src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Byte.java line 129: > >> 127: archivedCache = c; >> 128: } else if (archivedCache.length != size) { >> 129: throw new IllegalStateException("CDS archive is broken: >> ByteCache mismatch"); > > Does `InternalError` better fit the job here? Right, let's do `InternalError`. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21737#discussion_r1820745317
