-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.8k
8265956: JVM crashes when matching LShiftVB Node #3747
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
Conversation
👋 Welcome back whuang! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into |
@Wanghuang-Huawei The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:
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. |
/contributor add Wang Huang whuang@openjdk.org |
@Wanghuang-Huawei |
@Wanghuang-Huawei |
Webrevs
|
test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/vectorapi/TestVectorShuffleIotaShort.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Please update the copyright year of |
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ | |||
/* | |||
* Copyright (c) 2020, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. | |||
* Copyright (c) 2021, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. |
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.
Should be "2020, 2021" since it is not a new file.
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.
Thank you. I have changed that.
static byte[] expected_64 = {1, 3, 5, 7, -7, -5, -3, -1}; | ||
static byte[] expected_128 = {1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, -15, -13, -11, -9, -7, -5, -3, -1}; | ||
static byte[] expected_256 = {1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, | ||
-31, -29, -27, -25, -23, -21, -19, -17, -15, -13, -11, -9, -7, -5, -3, -1}; | ||
static byte[] expected_512 = {1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, |
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 much better to me! Just a small suggestion here: it's better to use static final
if these arrays are not expected to be modified.
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.
OK. Thank you for your review.
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.
I have changed this.
LGTM, thanks! |
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.
The fix looks correct.
@Wanghuang-Huawei 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 209 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. As you do not have Committer status in this project an existing Committer must agree to sponsor your change. Possible candidates are the reviewers of this PR (@vnkozlov, @DamonFool) but any other Committer may sponsor as well. ➡️ To flag this PR as ready for integration with the above commit message, type |
/integrate |
@Wanghuang-Huawei |
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.
Thanks for your update.
All the vectorapi tests passed in our x86 platforms. /integrate |
/sponsor |
@DamonFool Only the author (@Wanghuang-Huawei) is allowed to issue the |
@DamonFool @Wanghuang-Huawei Since your change was applied there have been 209 commits pushed to the
Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts. Pushed as commit 10a049e. 💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored. |
It is fount that the rule
match(Set dst (LShiftVB src shift))
is missing on many cpus, such likeaarch64
andx86
. It is this reason that JVM will crash underJDK-8265956
's test case. In this commit, I :TestVectorShuffleIotaShort
solve the issue onsolve the issue by addingaarch64
andx86
by adding the rule.LShiftCntVNode
without adding any ruleThank you for your review. Any suggestion is welcome.
Wang Huang
Progress
Issue
Reviewers
Contributors
<whuang@openjdk.org>
<aijiaming1@huawei.com>
Reviewing
Using
git
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/3747/head:pull/3747
$ git checkout pull/3747
Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/3747
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/3747/head
Using Skara CLI tools
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 3747
View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 3747
Using diff file
Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/3747.diff