-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.6k
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
8264958: C2 compilation fails with assert "n is later than its clone" #3539
Conversation
👋 Welcome back roland! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good!
@rwestrel 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:
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 13 new commits pushed to the
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 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me.
@neliasso @TobiHartmann thanks for the reviews |
/integrate |
@rwestrel Since your change was applied there have been 13 commits pushed to the
Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts. Pushed as commit 7137328. 💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored. |
JDK-8229483 added logic to hoist a load that would wrongly end up in
an outer strip mined loop. That logic checks that it's legal to do so
with:
is_dominator(n_ctrl, x_head)
but that test passes for n_ctrl == x_head when it's not legal to hoist
the load i.e. the test we want is for strict domination. The fix I
propose is to add an explicit check for that case.
Progress
Issue
Reviewers
Reviewing
Using
git
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/3539/head:pull/3539
$ git checkout pull/3539
Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/3539
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/3539/head
Using Skara CLI tools
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 3539
View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 3539
Using diff file
Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/3539.diff