[13] RFR(S): 8218201: Failures when vmIntrinsics::_getClass is not inlined

[Vladimir Kozlov]

Looks good.

Thanks,
Vladimir

On 3/8/19 12:25 AM, Tobias Hartmann wrote:
> Vladimir, Dean, thanks for the review.
> 
> My first fix version had '_return_allocated = false' but then I incorrectly assumed that the
> behavior would be the same as if we don't special case at all. I missed that the receiver is of
> course also involved and you are right that we should not treat it as "global escape".
> 
> New webrev:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~thartmann/8218201/webrev.01/
> 
> Best regards,
> Tobias
> 
> On 07.03.19 20:20, dean.long at oracle.com wrote:
>> I agree.  We don't want obj.getClass() to treat obj as "global escape".
>>
>> dl
>>
>> PS - Original change goes back to JDK-6488063.
>>
>> On 3/7/19 10:46 AM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>>> _getClass is special case because it is native call and we can't do bytecode analysis.
>>> But we know what it does (it loads klass from object and mirror from klass) - no allocations, no
>>> locals, no arguments returned.
>>> I think it is simple missing _return_allocated = false setting in addition to _return_local =
>>> false. _return_allocated is set to true by default optimistically.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Vladimir
>>>
>>> On 3/7/19 4:54 AM, Tobias Hartmann wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> please review the following patch:
>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8218201
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~thartmann/8218201/webrev.00/
>>>>
>>>> When intrinsification is disabled, the BCEscapeAnalyzer marks the return value of the (native)
>>>> method Object::getClass as "return allocated value" which means that "only newly allocated unescaped
>>>> objects are returned". The OptimizePtrCompare optimization then uses this information to incorrectly
>>>> fold 'obj.getClass() == Object.class' (see TestGetClass.java:39) to always false.
>>>>
>>>> This is a very old issue and I can't trace back why a special case for the _getClass intrinsic has
>>>> been added to the BCEscapeAnalyzer. Since I don't think we should make any assumptions about the
>>>> returned Object, I've removed the special case.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Tobias
>>>>
>>