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
8254269: simplify Node::disconnect_inputs #589
Conversation
👋 Welcome back xliu! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into |
Webrevs
|
/summary Node::disconnect_inputs cuts off all input edges without exception. |
@navyxliu Setting summary to |
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.
Nice cleanup! A few suggestions inline, but looks good as-is, too.
@navyxliu 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 26 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 (@cl4es, @vnkozlov) but any other Committer may sponsor as well. ➡️ To flag this PR as ready for integration with the above commit message, type |
Optimize it for the precedence loop. because there's no null between 2 non-null precedences, disconnect_inputs can break at a null value.
I think the changes in b8a7275 might be fine, but they are more subtle than the cleanup in the preceding version and I'm not comfortable reviewing them. I think it needs a more thorough examination of if those optimizations always hold. Could probably use some more asserts, a few tests and lift the documented assumption of the structure of the input to a more visible place. My suggestion is to push this ahead with the straightforward cleanup you had in 4a9d803 and file a follow-up RFE for the other optimization. |
yes, thank for the advice. |
I filed JDK-8254369 for the bug. Let's keep this PR as a clean-up. |
/integrate |
/sponsor |
@vnkozlov @navyxliu Since your change was applied there have been 26 commits pushed to the
Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts. Pushed as commit bff586f. 💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored. |
Progress
Testing
Issue
Reviewers
Download
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/589/head:pull/589
$ git checkout pull/589