8349835: C2: Simplify IGV property printing #26902

sarannat · 2025-08-22T13:28:22Z

Issue

The code that prints node properties and live range properties is very verbose and repetitive and could be simplified by applying a refactoring suggested here.

Fix

Implemented the suggested refactoring.

Testing

Github Actions, Tier 1-3

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-8349835: C2: Simplify IGV property printing (Enhancement - P4)

Reviewers

Damon Fenacci (@dafedafe - Committer) Review applies to eaec2213
Christian Hagedorn (@chhagedorn - Reviewer) Review applies to 38cfdefb
Roberto Castañeda Lozano (@robcasloz - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/26902/head:pull/26902
$ git checkout pull/26902

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/26902
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/26902/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 26902

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 26902

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26902.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

bridgekeeper · 2025-08-22T13:29:18Z

👋 Welcome back snatarajan! 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 · 2025-08-22T13:29:40Z

@sarannat 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:

8349835: C2: Simplify IGV property printing

Reviewed-by: rcastanedalo, dfenacci, chagedorn

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 94 new commits pushed to the master branch:

30410fe: 8333871: Check return values of sysinfo
d57fc1b: 8372135: clang compilation error
8a5c9e0: 8372146: Follow-up changes to the Lazy Constants JEP
... and 91 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/09b25cd0a24a4eaddce49917d958adc667ab5465...master

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 · 2025-08-22T13:30:16Z

@sarannat 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.

mlbridge · 2025-09-19T20:58:21Z

Webrevs

dafedafe

Thanks @sarannat for cleaning this up! The fix looks ok for me. I just left a couple of inline comments for minor things.

dafedafe · 2025-09-22T06:32:42Z

src/hotspot/share/opto/idealGraphPrinter.cpp

+          {1, "reg_pressure", nullptr, lrg.reg_pressure()},
+          {1, "cost", nullptr, (int) lrg._cost},
+          {1, "area", nullptr, (int) lrg._area},
+          {1, "score", nullptr, (int) lrg.score()},


It is mainly a style matter but as _cond is a bool it might be better to use true rather than 1

dafedafe · 2025-09-22T06:40:56Z

src/hotspot/share/opto/idealGraphPrinter.cpp

  tail(PROPERTY_ELEMENT);
 }

+void IdealGraphPrinter::print_prop_record(const IdealGraphPrintRecord rec[], int size) {


Just a small naming note: the method actually prints multiple records. Could it be preferable to use the plural form?

dafedafe · 2025-09-22T06:41:46Z

src/hotspot/share/opto/idealGraphPrinter.cpp

+        {((flags & Node::Flag_may_be_short_branch) != 0), "may_be_short_branch","true"},
+        {((flags & Node::Flag_has_call) != 0), "has_call", "true"},
+        {((flags & Node::Flag_has_swapped_edges) != 0), "has_swapped_edges", "true"}
+      };


The indentation seems a bit off.

BTW we might want to use TRUE_VALUE instead of "true" here.

dafedafe · 2025-09-22T06:42:21Z

src/hotspot/share/opto/idealGraphPrinter.cpp

+          {(lrg._must_spill != 0), "must_spill", TRUE_VALUE},
+          {(lrg._is_bound != 0), "is_bound", TRUE_VALUE},
+          {lrg._msize_valid && lrg._degree_valid && lrg.lo_degree(), "trivial", TRUE_VALUE}
+        };


Same intentation issue here.

dafedafe · 2025-09-22T06:55:17Z

src/hotspot/share/opto/idealGraphPrinter.cpp


+void IdealGraphPrinter::print_prop_record(const IdealGraphPrintRecord rec[], int size) {
+  for ( int i = 0; i < size; i++ ) {
+    if (rec[i]._cond != 0) {


As for the comment below it might be more consistent to only use rec[i]._cond as the condition.

chhagedorn · 2025-09-22T07:55:53Z

src/hotspot/share/opto/idealGraphPrinter.cpp

-        print_prop("trivial", TRUE_VALUE);
-      }
+      IdealGraphPrintRecord rec[] = {
+          {1, "mask", buffer},


Thank for trying to clean this up! I see the benefit of doing it since it looks like we can get rid of the repetitions. But using this approach now feels like we squeezed in too much into a single generic method and fall back to arrays with structs with some optional fields that are sometimes set to null which is not easy to comprehend. And the method visit_nodes() is still quite large. What if we just had different methods or even classes for different properties? This helps with self-documenting the code and also avoids passing in some nullptr for unused values. For example (in pseudocode):

node flag properties all share the same pattern:

class NodeFlags: NodeFlags _flags; print_properties() { print_property(Flag_is_Copy, "is_copy"); print_property(Flag_rematerialize, "rematerialize"); ... } print_property(flag, property) { if (_flags & flag) { print_prop(property, "true"); } }

For lrg: Could also create a class and store lrg as field. We could have different printing methods, for example for unconditional prints, for printing true etc.

This is just an idea, I have not actually tried it out. What are your thoughts about that alternative approach?

We might have even more opportunities to refactor visit_node() since there are some more repetitive patterns here and there. But this could also be done separately.

jdksjolen

Hi,

I'd change the data structure to have a tagged union with separate constructors to make the struct understandable.

jdksjolen · 2025-09-22T14:24:55Z

src/hotspot/share/opto/idealGraphPrinter.hpp

+  struct IdealGraphPrintRecord {
+    bool _cond;
+    const char *_name;
+    const char *_svalue = nullptr;
+    int _ivalue = -1;
+  };


Get rid of optionals and explicit condition checking by introducing a tagged union.

struct IdealGraphPrintRecord { enum class State { False, String, Integer }; State _state; const char* _name; union { const char* _svalue; int _ivalue; }; IdealGraphPrintRecord(bool cond, const char* name, int value) : _state( cond ? State::Integer : State::False ), _name(name), _ivalue(value) {} IdealGraphPrintRecord(bool cond, const char* name, const char* value) : _state( cond ? State::String : State::False ), _name(name), _svalue(value) {} bool has_string() { return _state == State::String; } bool has_int() { return _state == State::Integer; } const char* string_value() { return _svalue; } const char* key() { ... } int int_value() { ... } };

jdksjolen · 2025-09-22T14:27:47Z

src/hotspot/share/opto/idealGraphPrinter.cpp

+    const IdealGraphPrintRecord rec[] = {
+        {((flags & Node::Flag_is_Copy) != 0), "is_copy", "true"},
+        {((flags & Node::Flag_rematerialize) != 0), "rematerialize", "true"},
+        {((flags & Node::Flag_needs_anti_dependence_check) != 0), "needs_anti_dependence_check", "true"},
+        {((flags & Node::Flag_is_macro) != 0), "is_macro", "true"},
+        {((flags & Node::Flag_is_Con) != 0), "is_con", "true"},
+        {((flags & Node::Flag_is_cisc_alternate) != 0), "is_cisc_alternate", "true"},
+        {((flags & Node::Flag_is_dead_loop_safe) != 0), "is_dead_loop_safe", "true"},
+        {((flags & Node::Flag_may_be_short_branch) != 0), "may_be_short_branch","true"},
+        {((flags & Node::Flag_has_call) != 0), "has_call", "true"},
+        {((flags & Node::Flag_has_swapped_edges) != 0), "has_swapped_edges", "true"}
+      };


This code desperately needs a utility to check the corresponding bits in flags :-).

sarannat · 2025-09-23T07:52:27Z

Thank you for the review.
@jdksjolen : I did think of tagged unions while fixing the issue. I did not implement it as my understanding was that it necessarily does not decrease the code size. However, I agree it is better than the current implementation. I plan to try out the changes suggested by @chhagedorn to see if it introduces more opportunities to refactor 'visit_node()'. If it is not feasible, I fall back to tagged union.

chhagedorn

Thanks for the update, that looks much better! Some more small follow-up comments.

chhagedorn · 2025-10-22T09:14:50Z

src/hotspot/share/opto/idealGraphPrinter.hpp

@@ -31,6 +31,7 @@
 #include "utilities/ostream.hpp"
 #include "utilities/xmlstream.hpp"

+


Suggested change

chhagedorn · 2025-10-22T09:15:41Z

src/hotspot/share/opto/idealGraphPrinter.hpp

@@ -165,6 +169,20 @@ class IdealGraphPrinter : public CHeapObj<mtCompiler> {
  void update_compiled_method(ciMethod* current_method);
 };

+class PrintProperties


Do you really need it in the header file? You could also just move it the the source file directly where we use the class.

My reasoning is keep the interface and implementation separate. I have kept it this way. Will that be okay ?

I'm not sure I understand the benefit of having it separately when the only user is in the source file and it's tightly coupled to the implementation of the IdealGraphPrinter class. This will expose it to other files while it's not needed. Or is it just for readability?

Yes, it was mostly for readability. I do agree with you and have now followed your suggestion of moving the class to the source file.

chhagedorn · 2025-10-22T09:18:04Z

src/hotspot/share/opto/idealGraphPrinter.cpp

@@ -1220,6 +1111,76 @@ void IdealGraphPrinter::update_compiled_method(ciMethod* current_method) {
  }
 }

+void PrintProperties::print_node_properties(Node* node, Compile* C){


Suggested change

void PrintProperties::print_node_properties(Node* node, Compile* C){

void PrintProperties::print_node_properties(Node* node, Compile* C) {

chhagedorn · 2025-10-22T09:30:10Z

src/hotspot/share/opto/idealGraphPrinter.cpp

+  if (flag) {
+    _printer->print_prop(name, IdealGraphPrinter::TRUE_VALUE);
+  }
+}
+
+void PrintProperties::print_property(int flag, const char* name, const char* val) {
+  if (flag) {
+    _printer->print_prop(name, val);
+  }
+}
+
+void PrintProperties::print_property(int flag, const char* name, int val) {
+  if (flag) {
+    _printer->print_prop(name, val);
+  }


We should not use implicit conversion of ints, same below:

Suggested change

if (flag) {

_printer->print_prop(name, IdealGraphPrinter::TRUE_VALUE);

}

}

void PrintProperties::print_property(int flag, const char* name, const char* val) {

if (flag) {

_printer->print_prop(name, val);

}

}

void PrintProperties::print_property(int flag, const char* name, int val) {

if (flag) {

_printer->print_prop(name, val);

}

if (flag != 0) {

_printer->print_prop(name, IdealGraphPrinter::TRUE_VALUE);

}

}

void PrintProperties::print_property(int flag, const char* name, const char* val) {

if (flag != 0) {

_printer->print_prop(name, val);

}

}

void PrintProperties::print_property(int flag, const char* name, int val) {

if (flag != 0) {

_printer->print_prop(name, val);

}

chhagedorn · 2025-10-22T10:35:21Z

src/hotspot/share/opto/idealGraphPrinter.hpp

+class PrintProperties
+{
+private:
+  IdealGraphPrinter *_printer;


For new code, we should put the the * at the type.

dafedafe · 2025-10-27T12:11:51Z

src/hotspot/share/opto/idealGraphPrinter.hpp

+public:
+  PrintProperties(IdealGraphPrinter *printer) : _printer(printer) {}
+  void print_node_properties(Node *node, Compile *C);
+  void print_lrg_properties(const LRG &lrg, const char *buffer);


is passing by reference done to avoid copying?

That is my only reason for doing this.

dafedafe · 2025-10-27T13:00:26Z

src/hotspot/share/opto/idealGraphPrinter.cpp

+    print_property(!(C->matcher()->is_shared(node)), "is_shared", IdealGraphPrinter::FALSE_VALUE);
+    print_property(C->matcher()->is_dontcare(node), "is_dontcare");
+    print_property(!(C->matcher()->is_dontcare(node)),"is_dontcare", IdealGraphPrinter::FALSE_VALUE);
+    print_property((C->matcher()->find_old_node(node) != nullptr), "old_node_idx", C->matcher()->find_old_node(node)->_idx);


I think we might have an issue here: C->matcher()->find_old_node(node)->_idx is always evaluated no matter if C->matcher()->find_old_node(node) != nullptr or not.

Yes, I have fixed this now.

robcasloz

Thanks for working on this, Saranya! We do not have good test coverage of IGV graph dumping, so only running regular tier testing might not catch possible regressions introduced by this changeset. Consider also comparing the XML graphs dumped before and after the changeset for a few well-known methods with deterministic compilation, e.g.:

$ ${BASELINE_JAVA} -Xbatch -XX:PrintIdealGraphLevel=6 -XX:CompileOnly=java.lang.String::charAt -XX:PrintIdealGraphFile=before.xml
$ ${PATCHED_JAVA}  -Xbatch -XX:PrintIdealGraphLevel=6 -XX:CompileOnly=java.lang.String::charAt -XX:PrintIdealGraphFile=after.xml
$ diff before.xml after.xml

The only expected changes between the two files would be things like memory addresses, process and thread IDs, etc. But all the other properties should remain the same.

openjdk · 2025-11-17T10:17:28Z

@sarannat 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 JDK-8349835
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

sarannat · 2025-11-17T10:31:58Z

@robcasloz: I followed the testing methodology you suggested for the below commands. I did hit a crash that I fixed, after that the only difference were to the memory, process, and thread ID.

-XX:CompileOnly=java.lang.String::length
-XX:CompileOnly=java.lang.String::charAt
-XX:CompileOnly=java.util.ArrayList::get
-XX:CompileOnly=java.util.ArrayList::add

In this testing, I did NOT see prints for is_cisc_alternate, rematerialize, has_call, is_float, is_vector, is_predicate, is_scalable, and must_spill. However, these prints look straightforward.

robcasloz

Thanks for cleaning up this code and testing it thoroughly, Saranya. The changes look good to me overall, I just have a few minor suggestions.
There may be more properties that could be printed using the new abstraction, but I am OK with addressing those separately.

robcasloz · 2025-11-19T12:58:56Z

src/hotspot/share/opto/idealGraphPrinter.hpp

 class InlineTree;
 class ciMethod;
 class JVMState;
+class LRG;


This forward declaration is not needed anymore.

robcasloz · 2025-11-19T13:04:09Z

src/hotspot/share/opto/idealGraphPrinter.cpp

+    print_property(!(C->matcher()->is_dontcare(node)),"is_dontcare", IdealGraphPrinter::FALSE_VALUE);
+    Node* old = C->matcher()->find_old_node(node);
+    if (old != nullptr) {
+      print_property(true, "old_node_idx", C->matcher()->find_old_node(node)->_idx);


Suggested change

print_property(true, "old_node_idx", C->matcher()->find_old_node(node)->_idx);

print_property(true, "old_node_idx", old->_idx);

robcasloz · 2025-11-19T13:16:29Z

src/hotspot/share/opto/idealGraphPrinter.cpp

+public:
+  PrintProperties(IdealGraphPrinter* printer) : _printer(printer) {}
+  void print_node_properties(Node* node, Compile* C);
+  void print_lrg_properties(const LRG &lrg, const char* buffer);


Suggested change

void print_lrg_properties(const LRG &lrg, const char* buffer);

void print_lrg_properties(const LRG& lrg, const char* buffer);

robcasloz · 2025-11-19T13:18:06Z

src/hotspot/share/opto/idealGraphPrinter.cpp

+
+public:
+  PrintProperties(IdealGraphPrinter* printer) : _printer(printer) {}
+  void print_node_properties(Node* node, Compile* C);


I suggest to fetch the Compile reference within print_node_properties from _printer->C instead.

Suggested change

void print_node_properties(Node* node, Compile* C);

void print_node_properties(Node* node);

chhagedorn

Thanks for the updates! Apart from Roberto's suggestions, it looks good!

openjdk · 2025-11-20T14:33:55Z

⚠️ @sarannat This pull request contains merges that bring in commits not present in the target repository. Since this is not a "merge style" pull request, these changes will be squashed when this pull request in integrated. If this is your intention, then please ignore this message. If you want to preserve the commit structure, you must change the title of this pull request to Merge <project>:<branch> where <project> is the name of another project in the OpenJDK organization (for example Merge jdk:master).

sarannat · 2025-11-20T14:38:58Z

Thank you for the review @robcasloz. I have now addressed these and filed JDK-8372273 to address the rest of the node properties.

robcasloz

Thanks for addressing my comments Saranya, I just have one final suggestion, looks good otherwise.

robcasloz · 2025-11-21T06:47:04Z

src/hotspot/share/opto/idealGraphPrinter.cpp

+  if (_printer->C->matcher() != nullptr) {
+    print_property(_printer->C->matcher()->is_shared(node),"is_shared");
+    print_property(!(_printer->C->matcher()->is_shared(node)), "is_shared", IdealGraphPrinter::FALSE_VALUE);
+    print_property(_printer->C->matcher()->is_dontcare(node), "is_dontcare");
+    print_property(!(_printer->C->matcher()->is_dontcare(node)),"is_dontcare", IdealGraphPrinter::FALSE_VALUE);
+    Node* old = _printer->C->matcher()->find_old_node(node);


Suggested change

if (_printer->C->matcher() != nullptr) {

print_property(_printer->C->matcher()->is_shared(node),"is_shared");

print_property(!(_printer->C->matcher()->is_shared(node)), "is_shared", IdealGraphPrinter::FALSE_VALUE);

print_property(_printer->C->matcher()->is_dontcare(node), "is_dontcare");

print_property(!(_printer->C->matcher()->is_dontcare(node)),"is_dontcare", IdealGraphPrinter::FALSE_VALUE);

Node* old = _printer->C->matcher()->find_old_node(node);

Matcher* matcher = _printer->C->matcher();

if (matcher != nullptr) {

print_property(matcher->is_shared(node),"is_shared");

print_property(!matcher->is_shared(node), "is_shared", IdealGraphPrinter::FALSE_VALUE);

print_property(matcher->is_dontcare(node), "is_dontcare");

print_property(!matcher->is_dontcare(node),"is_dontcare", IdealGraphPrinter::FALSE_VALUE);

Node* old = matcher->find_old_node(node);

dafedafe

Thanks again @sarannat. I just have one more nit/doubt. Looks good to me otherwise.

dafedafe · 2025-11-21T10:16:23Z

src/hotspot/share/opto/idealGraphPrinter.cpp

+void PrintProperties::print_lrg_properties(const LRG &lrg, const char *buffer) {
+  print_property(true, "mask", buffer);
+  print_property(true, "mask_size", lrg.mask_size());
+  if (lrg._degree_valid) {


I know it was there already, but do we still need this if?

sarannat · 2025-11-26T09:26:05Z

/integrate

openjdk · 2025-11-26T09:27:33Z

Going to push as commit 5fe731d.
Since your change was applied there have been 155 commits pushed to the master branch:

275cb9f: 8360510: C2: Template Assertion Predicates are not cloned to the inner counted loop with -XX:+StressDuplicateBackedge
46ee8d5: 8372547: New test sun/security/provider/acvp/ML_DSA_Intrinsic_Test.java should be restricted to x86_64
3ef3f25: 8372253: Improve logging to show why a class was excluded from AOT Cache
... and 152 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/09b25cd0a24a4eaddce49917d958adc667ab5465...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

openjdk · 2025-11-26T09:27:42Z

@sarannat Pushed as commit 5fe731d.

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

initial fix

598a629

openjdk bot changed the title ~~JDK-8349835: C2: simplify IGV property printing~~ 8349835: C2: simplify IGV property printing Aug 22, 2025

openjdk bot added the hotspot-compiler hotspot-compiler-dev@openjdk.org label Aug 22, 2025

sarannat added 2 commits August 25, 2025 16:28

fix to failing test

b9e39a5

changing int to bool in a struct

79fc6a6

sarannat marked this pull request as ready for review September 19, 2025 20:54

openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Sep 19, 2025

dafedafe reviewed Sep 22, 2025

View reviewed changes

chhagedorn reviewed Sep 22, 2025

View reviewed changes

jdksjolen reviewed Sep 22, 2025

View reviewed changes

sarannat added 2 commits October 1, 2025 10:43

addressing review comments

ff19410

fixing test failure

30ef8ee

chhagedorn reviewed Oct 22, 2025

View reviewed changes

dafedafe suggested changes Oct 27, 2025

View reviewed changes

addressing review comments#2

31452c6

robcasloz reviewed Oct 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

sarannat added 2 commits November 10, 2025 16:45

Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8349835

43e7b6e

testing and review on moving code to cpp

eec2619

openjdk bot added the merge-conflict Pull request has merge conflict with target branch label Nov 17, 2025

Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8349835

38cfdef

openjdk bot removed the merge-conflict Pull request has merge conflict with target branch label Nov 17, 2025

robcasloz reviewed Nov 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

chhagedorn approved these changes Nov 20, 2025

View reviewed changes

sarannat added 2 commits November 20, 2025 15:27

addressing review comments

01cf4e2

merge conflict

85f3495

sarannat changed the title ~~8349835: C2: simplify IGV property printing~~ 8349835: C2: Simplify IGV property printing Nov 20, 2025

fix for merge mistake

eaec221

robcasloz suggested changes Nov 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

dafedafe approved these changes Nov 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

sarannat added 2 commits November 21, 2025 11:22

addressing review comments on Matcher*

d26073a

addressing review comments - removing reduntant lrg._degree_valid

0cbbf30

robcasloz approved these changes Nov 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Nov 21, 2025

openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Nov 26, 2025

openjdk bot closed this Nov 26, 2025

openjdk bot removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Nov 26, 2025

		@@ -31,6 +31,7 @@
		#include "utilities/ostream.hpp"
		#include "utilities/xmlstream.hpp"

	void PrintProperties::print_node_properties(Node* node, Compile* C){
	void PrintProperties::print_node_properties(Node* node, Compile* C) {

	print_property(true, "old_node_idx", C->matcher()->find_old_node(node)->_idx);
	print_property(true, "old_node_idx", old->_idx);

	void print_lrg_properties(const LRG &lrg, const char* buffer);
	void print_lrg_properties(const LRG& lrg, const char* buffer);

	void print_node_properties(Node* node, Compile* C);
	void print_node_properties(Node* node);

-  if (_printer->C->matcher() != nullptr) {
-    print_property(_printer->C->matcher()->is_shared(node),"is_shared");
-    print_property(!(_printer->C->matcher()->is_shared(node)), "is_shared", IdealGraphPrinter::FALSE_VALUE);
-    print_property(_printer->C->matcher()->is_dontcare(node), "is_dontcare");
-    print_property(!(_printer->C->matcher()->is_dontcare(node)),"is_dontcare", IdealGraphPrinter::FALSE_VALUE);
-    Node* old = _printer->C->matcher()->find_old_node(node);
+  Matcher* matcher = _printer->C->matcher();
+  if (matcher != nullptr) {
+    print_property(matcher->is_shared(node),"is_shared");
+    print_property(!matcher->is_shared(node), "is_shared", IdealGraphPrinter::FALSE_VALUE);
+    print_property(matcher->is_dontcare(node), "is_dontcare");
+    print_property(!matcher->is_dontcare(node),"is_dontcare", IdealGraphPrinter::FALSE_VALUE);
+    Node* old = matcher->find_old_node(node);

8349835: C2: Simplify IGV property printing #26902

8349835: C2: Simplify IGV property printing #26902

Uh oh!

Conversation

sarannat commented Aug 22, 2025 • edited by openjdk bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Issue

Fix

Testing

Progress

Issue

Reviewers

Reviewing

Uh oh!

bridgekeeper bot commented Aug 22, 2025

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Aug 22, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Aug 22, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mlbridge bot commented Sep 19, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Webrevs

Uh oh!

dafedafe left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jdksjolen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sarannat commented Sep 23, 2025

Uh oh!

chhagedorn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

robcasloz left a comment

sarannat commented Aug 22, 2025 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

openjdk bot commented Aug 22, 2025 •

edited

Loading

openjdk bot commented Aug 22, 2025 •

edited

Loading

mlbridge bot commented Sep 19, 2025 •

edited

Loading

sarannat commented Nov 17, 2025 •

edited

Loading