Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

8353600: RISC-V: compiler/vectorization/TestRotateByteAndShortVector.java is failing with Zvbb #24414

Closed

Conversation

Hamlin-Li
Copy link

@Hamlin-Li Hamlin-Li commented Apr 3, 2025

Hi,
Can you help to review this patch?

Currently, the followign code is considered an RotateLeftV of byte by hotspot, but it's not a real rotate, as the -shift will 30, which makes b >> -shift zero, rather the value we expected.

int shift = 2;
byte b = 83;
byte res = (byte) (b << shift | b >> -shift); // res = 76
// but a real left rotate of 83 should be 77 ??

So, the simple fix is to enable RotateLeftV only for int and long, disable it for other types.

A more rational fix should be change C2 to not convert code like (byte) (b << shift | b >> -shift) to a RotateLeftV node, but it needs more investigation, and I'm not sure if it's feasible to do so, as currently no platform support RotateLeftV for non-int/long types.

The vector instruction behaviour is different from java language spec, so seems there is no way to do it for now.

Thanks!


Progress

  • Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
  • Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
  • Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

  • JDK-8353600: RISC-V: compiler/vectorization/TestRotateByteAndShortVector.java is failing with Zvbb (Bug - P4)

Reviewers

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/24414/head:pull/24414
$ git checkout pull/24414

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/24414
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/24414/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 24414

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 24414

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24414.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

bridgekeeper bot commented Apr 3, 2025

👋 Welcome back mli! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Apr 3, 2025

@Hamlin-Li This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8353600: RISC-V: compiler/vectorization/TestRotateByteAndShortVector.java is failing with Zvbb

Reviewed-by: fyang, luhenry

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 74 new commits pushed to the master branch:

As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Apr 3, 2025

@Hamlin-Li this pull request can not be integrated into master due to one or more merge conflicts. To resolve these merge conflicts and update this pull request you can run the following commands in the local repository for your personal fork:

git checkout disable-rotatev-byte-short
git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git master
git merge FETCH_HEAD
# resolve conflicts and follow the instructions given by git merge
git commit -m "Merge master"
git push

@openjdk openjdk bot added the merge-conflict Pull request has merge conflict with target branch label Apr 3, 2025
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Apr 3, 2025

@Hamlin-Li The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

  • hotspot-compiler

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the hotspot-compiler hotspot-compiler-dev@openjdk.org label Apr 3, 2025
@openjdk openjdk bot added rfr Pull request is ready for review and removed merge-conflict Pull request has merge conflict with target branch labels Apr 3, 2025
@mlbridge
Copy link

mlbridge bot commented Apr 3, 2025

Webrevs

Copy link
Member

@RealFYang RealFYang left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM. Thanks for fixing this!

@openjdk openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Apr 7, 2025
@Hamlin-Li
Copy link
Author

Thanks for your reviews @RealFYang @luhenry !

@Hamlin-Li
Copy link
Author

/integrate

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Apr 8, 2025

Going to push as commit cc5e938.
Since your change was applied there have been 75 commits pushed to the master branch:

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Apr 8, 2025
@openjdk openjdk bot closed this Apr 8, 2025
@openjdk openjdk bot removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Apr 8, 2025
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Apr 8, 2025

@Hamlin-Li Pushed as commit cc5e938.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
hotspot-compiler hotspot-compiler-dev@openjdk.org integrated Pull request has been integrated
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants