Request for review (M): 6860469: remix_address_expressions sets incorrect control causing crash in split_if_with_block_post

[Chuck Rasbold]

Looks good. Thanks.

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Tom Rodriguez <Thomas.Rodriguez at sun.com>wrote:

> Check out http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~never/6861513<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Enever/6861513>
> .
>
> tom
>
>
> On Jul 16, 2009, at 1:21 PM, Chuck Rasbold wrote:
>
>  Let's follow the precedent.  Please correct.
>>
>> If you are feeling generous, the Test in 6837094 could be fixed, too.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Tom Rodriguez <Thomas.Rodriguez at sun.com>
>> wrote:
>> Thanks for the explanation.  I'm happy to correct it if you like.
>>
>> tom
>>
>>
>> On Jul 16, 2009, at 7:22 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>>
>> We're still working out legalities, but the precedent for legal notices
>> for a source file that is non-Sun-authored
>> is to not include the Sun copyright line
>>
>> Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>>
>> For example, here is a Google-authored file:
>>
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk7/timsort/src/share/classes/java/util/TimSort.java.html<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Emartin/webrevs/openjdk7/timsort/src/share/classes/java/util/TimSort.java.html>
>>
>> (and files obtained from the public domain have no copyright line
>> inside their legal notice at all)
>>
>> It's no big deal either way, especially for tests,
>> as all contributors retain their rights under SCA.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 13:37, Tom Rodriguez <Thomas.Rodriguez at sun.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~never/6860469<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Enever/6860469>is what I'm going to push with you and hiroshi marked as contributors.  I
>> added the copyright and fixed the test case run running with jtreg.  The
>> class needed to be public and the class name was missing from the @run line.
>>
>> tom
>>
>> On Jul 15, 2009, at 12:24 PM, Chuck Rasbold wrote:
>>
>> I presume that Sun will add the copyright notice when the code is
>> committed, and of course, I'm OK with that.
>>
>> IANAL, but I'm reluctant to add the notice in advance, mostly because I am
>> not employed by Sun.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Tom Rodriguez <Thomas.Rodriguez at sun.com>
>> wrote:
>> The test is missing the copyright notice but otherwise this looks good.
>>  BTW, I ran a full ctw with this change both as is and as an assert that
>> checked for cases where this would produce a different control and I only
>> found 4 cases where it ever changed the answer and none of those triggered a
>> failure in the way the test case does.  Hiroshi, thanks for tracking this
>> down and Chuck, thanks for distilling a test case.
>>
>> tom
>>
>>
>> On Jul 15, 2009, at 9:27 AM, Chuck Rasbold wrote:
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rasbold/6860469/webrev.00<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Erasbold/6860469/webrev.00>
>>
>> Fixed 6860469: remix_address_expressions sets incorrect control causing
>> crash in split_if_with_block_post
>>
>> Consult the control node of both inputs when deciding where to place
>> new LShiftI node.
>>
>> Previously, we assumed the invar input should set the new node's
>> control, and the scale input was irrelevant for control's sake.
>> However, sometimes the invar input is a constant, allowing it to be
>> higher in the dom tree than the scale.
>>
>> Fix provided by Hiroshi Yamauchi (yamauchi at google.com)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/attachments/20090716/fa2d0965/attachment.html