RFR: 8310308: IR Framework: check for type and size of vector nodes [v2]

[Emanuel Peter]

On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 13:05:45 GMT, Christian Hagedorn <chagedorn at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Emanuel Peter has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
>> 
>>   revert to ANY for TestAutoVectorization2DArray.java
>
> This is a great enhancement! Thanks for working on that.
> 
> I have left some comments in the IR framework code (will also have a look at the test updates later) but here are some more general comments:
> 
> - We should provide some better description when misusing the new features. Example:
> 
> @IR(counts = {IRNode.LOAD_VL, IRNode.VECTOR_SIZE + "min(4)", ">0"})
> @IR(counts = {IRNode.LOAD_VL, IRNode.VECTOR_SIZE + "min()", ">0"})
> 
> Output:
> 
>  - Provided invalid value "_ at min(4)" after comparator "=", node IRNode.LOAD_VL, in count string "_ at min(4)" for IR rule 2 at private static long compiler.loopopts.superword.TestGeneralizedReductions.testReductionOnPartiallyUnrolledLoopWithSwappedInputs(long[]).
>  - Provided invalid value "_ at min()" after comparator "=", node IRNode.LOAD_VL, in count string "_ at min()" for IR rule 3 at private static long compiler.loopopts.superword.TestGeneralizedReductions.testReductionOnPartiallyUnrolledLoopWithSwappedInputs(long[]).
> 
> We could give the user some more information about what's wrong here. You might want to play around with other wrong usages of the new features and check if the format violation is precise enough. You could also add these wrong usages to `TestBadFormat.java`.
> - We should have a (sanity) test that explicitely uses `IRNode.VECTOR_SIZE_ANY` and `IRNode.VECTOR_SIZE_MAX`.
> - We should also make sure to have some sanity tests for all the different variations that are now possible with the new features (if not already covered by your updated tests).

@chhagedorn I went through all your review suggestions. The changes are pushed. Rerunning testing...

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14539#issuecomment-1614418498