Request for reviews (S): 6823453: DeoptimizeALot causes fastdebug server jvm to fail with assert(false,"unscheduable graph")

[Vladimir Kozlov]

You are absolutely right.
The problem is the current code replace data path with TOP
after the full igvn but control path stays alive.
My changes remove CastII if it can produce TOP so the data path
stays alive also.

I like your suggestion to cut the control path during parsing but
it is against our rule which is to let IGVN do cutting
since during parsing graph is not complete.

Vladimir

Tom Rodriguez wrote:
> Isn't this just delaying the problem?  If you hide the negative value 
> behind something that won't get simplified until the full igvn pass then 
> you're back where you started, aren't you?  Or is this something that 
> would only be a problem during parse?



> 
> The root of the problem is that the negative length effectively proves 
> that the control flow following the allocation is all dead since it will 
> throw an exception but our graph doesn't express this.  The allocation 
> stays around and simply becomes a slow path call that will throw the 
> exception but any control flow that follows it is actually dead but 
> can't fold up.  Maybe we need to hammer the fall through projection of 
> the AllocateArrayNode to be a HaltNode to indicate that the fall through 
> path is unreachable?
> 
> tom
> 
> On Apr 1, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> 
>> I added test case suggested by John.
>> I also replaced the code in GraphKit::new_array
>> with the _gvn.transform(ccast) call and the result's
>> type check as John suggested. I think it is safe
>> to not delay the transform() call since the TOP result
>> will not be used.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vladimir
>>
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kvn/6823453/webrev.01
>>
>> Fixed 6823453: DeoptimizeALot causes fastdebug server jvm to fail with 
>> assert(false,"unscheduable graph")
>>
>> Problem:
>> The code in GraphKit::new_array replaces a negative value with
>> TOP (CastII(-1)#0) for all uses if it is used as new array length.
>> Incorrect ideal graph is generated as result.
>>
>> Solution:
>> Don't replace a value with TOP.
>> Added regression test.
>>
>> Reviewed by:
>>
>> Fix verified (y/n): y, bug tests
>>
>> Other testing:
>> JPRT
>>
>