On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 10:07:22 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev <sh...@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. >> >> I tested this patch with original reproducer from >> [JDK-8342642](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8342642) -- and it starts >> to pass. >> >> Additional testing: >> - [x] macos-aarch64-server-fastdebug, >> [JDK-8342642](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8342642) reproducer now >> passes >> - [x] macos-aarch64-server-fastdebug, new regression test fails without the >> fix, passes with it >> - [x] linux-aarch64-server-fastdebug, `all` > > Aleksey Shipilev has updated the pull request incrementally with one > additional commit since the last revision: > > Change InternalErrors to asserts LGTM. One small nit with variable names. src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Integer.java line 966: > 964: // Otherwise, the identity checks between archived > Integers and > 965: // runtime-cached Integers would fail. > 966: int archivedIdx = (archivedCache == null) ? 0 : > archivedCache.length; I think the name of `archiveIdx` isn't clear. How about `archivedSize`? ------------- Marked as reviewed by iklam (Reviewer). PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21737#pullrequestreview-2405844283 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21737#discussion_r1823153750
