-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 92
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
8324121: SIGFPE in PhaseIdealLoop::extract_long_range_checks #488
Conversation
👋 Welcome back shade! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into |
@shipilev 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 46 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 |
This backport pull request has now been updated with issue from the original commit. |
|
Webrevs
|
/approval request Clean backport to improve C2 reliability against overflows. Applies cleanly. All tests pass, including aggressive compiler testing. The new regression test unfortunately passes even without the fix. Usual risk for C2 changes, but the change looks simple enough, and there is no bugtail. |
Hi @shipilev |
I think this comes under the umbrella "Let's fix current overflow/ |
9331b29
to
9d8d178
Compare
/issue add 8329163 |
@shipilev 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. |
@shipilev |
Thanks for noticing, I think it was a separate issue that we could do separately, but given it is in the same code, we can couple them together. I am going to re-run some tests. |
Both backports are clean. /clean |
@shipilev This backport pull request is now marked as clean |
Hi @shipilev, I think this is a candiate for 22. |
Sure, I'll do that as well. |
/approval 8329163 request Clean backport, follow-up for JDK-8324121. All tests pass, including aggressive compiler testing. |
/integrate |
Going to push as commit 3892078.
Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts. |
Clean backport to improve C2 reliability.
Additional testing:
all
testsProgress
Issues
Reviewing
Using
git
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk21u-dev.git pull/488/head:pull/488
$ git checkout pull/488
Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/488
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk21u-dev.git pull/488/head
Using Skara CLI tools
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 488
View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 488
Using diff file
Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk21u-dev/pull/488.diff
Webrev
Link to Webrev Comment