RFR: JDK-8309266: C2: assert(final_con == (jlong)final_int) failed: final value should be integer [v3]

[Eric Nothum]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 08:17:31 GMT, Eric Nothum <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> **Acknowledgments**: Thanks to @quadhier for the preliminary work on this issue: https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/14353
>> 
>> **JDK-8309266**: TestLoopLimitOverflowDuringCCP.java causes an assertion error (overflow check) in LoopLimitNode::Value. To fix the issue I added a check in LoopLimitNode::Value that verifies that the input nodes are ConI type nodes. 
>> 
>> Previously, TestLoopLimitOverflowDuringCCP would cause the assertion error in LoopLimitNode::Value, during PhaseCCP::analyze. The problem originated from PhaseCCP initializing all types to TOP, resulting in the Phi node from `int limit = flag ? 1000 : Integer.MAX_VALUE` being temporarily considered as Integer.MAX_VALUE. This happens as the Node for the Integer.MAX_VALUE case was already analyzed by CCP while the Node for the 1000 case was still initialized to TOP. When resolving the value of the Phi node, Integer.MAX_VALUE and TOP get merged to Integer.MAX_VALUE, which is then processed by LoopLimitNode::Value as a constant, resulting in the integer overflow.
>> 
>> By checking that the input nodes are ConI nodes in LoopLimitNode::Value, we avoid Phi nodes being misinterpreted during PhaseCCP. If the Phi nodes turn out to be constant they should rather be first transformed to ConI nodes.
>
> Eric Nothum has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>    JDK-8309266: reverted previous changes. assert was adapted and in case of overflow bottom is now returned

I have now reverted my previous changes.
As new fix, 1) I have changed the assert to only trigger if the input nodes are `ConINode` and an overflow happens 2) if an overflow is detected, `bottom_type()` is returned.
This will now not slow down CCP anymore and the test case will execute properly now.

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14490#issuecomment-1596736240