RFR: 8371581: C2: PhaseCCP should reach fixpoint by revisiting deeply-Value-d nodes [v3]

[Aleksey Shipilev]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2025 13:40:12 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev <shade at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> I started this as investigation into one rare/intermittent CTW failure that I get with [JDK-8360557](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8360557). The bug seems to reproduce on a very specific JAR with a very specific random seed, so no easy regression test.
>> 
>> At this point I believe we found that PhaseCCP does not reach the fix point for a peculiar reason: `LoadN` that looks deeply into the graph is not revisited and thus misses the chance to update its type. There is an exception for loads in `verify_Value_for`, but it seems to only apply to constants, and does not apply to `LoadN` in question. Revisiting `LoadN` shows that updating the types downstream performs type widenings (= current types are too narrow), which AFAICS says that this unsound analysis can lead to miscompilation. See more debugging breadcrumbs in the bug.
>> 
>> It looks like we can reach the fixpoint by recording the nodes we need to revisit and doing another CCP round. This also makes CCP verification stricter: we effectively move 2 exceptional cases recorded in `verify_Value_for` into the analysis itself.
>> 
>> Testing shows there are no ill effects on correctness doing this. But I would appreciate someone more savvy in this code to sanity check all of this.
>> 
>> Additional testing:
>>  - [x] Linux x86_64 server fastdebug, CTW reproducer no longer fails
>>  - [x] Linux x86_64 server fastdebug, `all` tests pass
>>  - [x] Linux x86_64 server fastdebug, Maven Central CTW passes (!)
>
> Aleksey Shipilev has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   More comments

`hotspot_compiler` passes on current revision. CTW reproducer is still fixed. I am re-running larger CTW tests now.

Feel free to start testing in your environments as well :)

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28288#issuecomment-3527966688