Add SVM AOT support for resolved invokeHandle/invokeDynamic dispatch

[dsouzai]

• Add validation for TR_ValidateDynamicMethodFromCallsiteIndex
• Add validation for TR_ValidateHandleMethodFromCPIndex
• Add relocations for TR_CallsiteTableEntryAddress
• Add relocations for TR_MethodTypeTableEntryAddress
• Conditionally support storing LambdaForms into the SCC if -Xshareclasses:shareLambdaForm is enabled.

Depends on eclipse/omr#7494

[dsouzai]

@hangshao0 does f9c7eba look like the proper way to conditionally support storing LambdaForms into the SCC? I wanted something like this so that we can add AOT MH tests without having to enable by default both LambdaForms in the SCC & Resolved invokeHandle/invokeDynamic dispatch in AOT code.

[hangshao0]

does f9c7eba look like the proper way to conditionally support storing LambdaForms into the SCC?

Looks mostly fine. But you may want to set J9_FINDCLASS_FLAG_LAMBDAFORM | J9_FINDCLASS_FLAG_DO_NOT_SHARE in the case shareLambdaForm is off. Set flag J9_FINDCLASS_FLAG_LAMBDAFORM in the case shareLambdaForm is on.

[dsouzai]

@jdmpapin could you please review?

@hangshao0 could you please review the VM changes?

[hangshao0]

For now, is the new option shareLambdaForm a public option for everyone or a private option just to be used by OpenJ9 developers/builds ?

I remember the reason of not storing lambdaForms class is that it has a performance issue. Storing lambdaForms requires the VM to do extra class comparisons before we can return the correct lamdaForm class. There is a PR #19763 that could address the performance issue. But it is not merged so the performance issue is still there.

[dsouzai]

For now, is the new option shareLambdaForm a public option for everyone or a private option just to be used by OpenJ9 developers/builds ?

I'm treating this as an internal option for devs/testing. It can be deleted in the future when LambdaForms are stored into the SCC.

Is there a better way to create/use an option for dev/testing purposes?

[hangshao0]

I'm treating this as an internal option for devs/testing. It can be deleted in the future when LambdaForms are stored into the SCC.
Is there a better way to create/use an option for dev/testing purposes?

The reason I was asking is because public option needs to be documented in the user guide, but since it it private option, we don't need documentation change. The way you are doing it here is fine.

[hangshao0]

LGTM.