Skip to content

Conversation

@GoeLin
Copy link
Member

@GoeLin GoeLin commented Dec 11, 2023

I backport this for parity with 17.0.11-oracle.

This contains follow up fix 8274060: C2: Incorrect computation after JDK-8273454 and a part of JDK-8274130) C2: MulNode::Ideal chained transformations may act on wrong nodes which is already backported, but omitted the part to be applied to this patch.
This is also the reason why a clean backport failed.


Progress

  • Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
  • JDK-8273454 needs maintainer approval
  • Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
  • JDK-8274060 needs maintainer approval
  • Commit message must refer to an issue

Issues

  • JDK-8273454: C2: Transform (-a)(-b) into ab (Enhancement - P4 - Approved)
  • JDK-8274060: C2: Incorrect computation after JDK-8273454 (Bug - P1 - Approved)

Reviewers

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk17u-dev.git pull/2035/head:pull/2035
$ git checkout pull/2035

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/2035
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk17u-dev.git pull/2035/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 2035

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 2035

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk17u-dev/pull/2035.diff

Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

bridgekeeper bot commented Dec 11, 2023

👋 Welcome back goetz! 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 openjdk bot changed the title Backport 7c9868c0b3c9bd3d305e71f91596190813cdccce 8273454: C2: Transform (-a)*(-b) into a*b Dec 11, 2023
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Dec 11, 2023

This backport pull request has now been updated with issue from the original commit.

@openjdk openjdk bot added backport Port of a pull request already in a different code base rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Dec 11, 2023
@mlbridge
Copy link

mlbridge bot commented Dec 11, 2023

Webrevs

@GoeLin GoeLin force-pushed the goetz_backport_8273454 branch from fdb7fd8 to 286a84d Compare December 11, 2023 14:28
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Dec 11, 2023

@GoeLin Please do not rebase or force-push to an active PR as it invalidates existing review comments. Note for future reference, the bots always squash all changes into a single commit automatically as part of the integration. See OpenJDK Developers’ Guide for more information.

@GoeLin GoeLin force-pushed the goetz_backport_8273454 branch from 286a84d to 1a7414e Compare December 11, 2023 14:31
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Dec 11, 2023

@GoeLin Please do not rebase or force-push to an active PR as it invalidates existing review comments. Note for future reference, the bots always squash all changes into a single commit automatically as part of the integration. See OpenJDK Developers’ Guide for more information.

Copy link
Member

@shipilev shipilev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I never thought we would backport this. But now that we do, this hunk is missing:
openjdk/jdk@756d22c#diff-b1bd52f0743843e15452764f48ff43c15dd3192a28bfb684b34149f0e964996eR83-R84

When we backported JDK-8274130, we skipped that hunk.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the approval Requires approval; will be removed when approval is received label Dec 12, 2023
@GoeLin
Copy link
Member Author

GoeLin commented Dec 13, 2023

/issue 8274060

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Dec 13, 2023

@GoeLin
Adding additional issue to issue list: 8274060: C2: Incorrect computation after JDK-8273454.

@GoeLin
Copy link
Member Author

GoeLin commented Dec 13, 2023

Thanks for catching this! I thought I had added that part :/

Copy link
Member

@shipilev shipilev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, this looks right.

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Dec 13, 2023

⚠️ @GoeLin This change is now ready for you to apply for maintainer approval. This can be done directly in each associated issue or by using the /approval command.

@openjdk openjdk bot added approval Requires approval; will be removed when approval is received and removed approval Requires approval; will be removed when approval is received labels Dec 14, 2023
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Dec 15, 2023

@GoeLin 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:

8273454: C2: Transform (-a)*(-b) into a*b
8274060: C2: Incorrect computation after JDK-8273454

Reviewed-by: shade

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 12 new commits pushed to the master branch:

  • 969f105: 8302017: Allocate BadPaddingException only if it will be thrown
  • 78839e9: 8054022: HttpURLConnection timeouts with Expect: 100-Continue and no chunking
  • 6493102: 7167356: (javac) investigate failing tests in JavacParserTest
  • 71471c1: 8294254: [macOS] javax/swing/plaf/aqua/CustomComboBoxFocusTest.java failure
  • aba80d1: 8274634: Use String.equals instead of String.compareTo in java.desktop
  • 519fd89: 8295124: Atomic::add to pointer type may return wrong value
  • 5bc2302: 8271616: oddPart in MutableBigInteger::mutableModInverse contains info on final result
  • fb950fa: 8316415: Parallelize sun/security/rsa/SignedObjectChain.java subtests
  • 3a2bf8e: 8225377: type annotations are not visible to javac plugins across compilation boundaries
  • 9596656: 8271118: C2: StressGCM should have higher priority than frequency-based policy
  • ... and 2 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk17u-dev/compare/c67144742b6f4777da941f5158021884b7ea7768...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 openjdk bot added ready Pull request is ready to be integrated and removed approval Requires approval; will be removed when approval is received labels Dec 15, 2023
@GoeLin
Copy link
Member Author

GoeLin commented Dec 15, 2023

/integrate

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Dec 15, 2023

Going to push as commit 873148e.
Since your change was applied there have been 12 commits pushed to the master branch:

  • 969f105: 8302017: Allocate BadPaddingException only if it will be thrown
  • 78839e9: 8054022: HttpURLConnection timeouts with Expect: 100-Continue and no chunking
  • 6493102: 7167356: (javac) investigate failing tests in JavacParserTest
  • 71471c1: 8294254: [macOS] javax/swing/plaf/aqua/CustomComboBoxFocusTest.java failure
  • aba80d1: 8274634: Use String.equals instead of String.compareTo in java.desktop
  • 519fd89: 8295124: Atomic::add to pointer type may return wrong value
  • 5bc2302: 8271616: oddPart in MutableBigInteger::mutableModInverse contains info on final result
  • fb950fa: 8316415: Parallelize sun/security/rsa/SignedObjectChain.java subtests
  • 3a2bf8e: 8225377: type annotations are not visible to javac plugins across compilation boundaries
  • 9596656: 8271118: C2: StressGCM should have higher priority than frequency-based policy
  • ... and 2 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk17u-dev/compare/c67144742b6f4777da941f5158021884b7ea7768...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Dec 15, 2023
@openjdk openjdk bot closed this Dec 15, 2023
@openjdk openjdk bot removed the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Dec 15, 2023
@openjdk openjdk bot removed the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Dec 15, 2023
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Dec 15, 2023

@GoeLin Pushed as commit 873148e.

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

@GoeLin GoeLin deleted the goetz_backport_8273454 branch December 15, 2023 12:43
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

backport Port of a pull request already in a different code base integrated Pull request has been integrated

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants