RFR: 8361608: C2: assert(opaq->outcnt() == 1 && opaq->in(1) == limit) failed

[Marc Chevalier]

On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 09:32:17 GMT, Roberto Castañeda Lozano <rcastanedalo at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> I mean that I went in the peeling policy to write conditions such as "first time, return 'no peeling' only the second time, run normally", to try to reproduce the right sequence on one particular input. So it's not very far of stressing: instead of deciding randomly, I hardcode in the C++ whether it should run normally or exit immediately for each call to the peeling policy. It's mostly useful for the case where the natural run would peel, but I don't want it to happen too early.
>> 
>> Unlike stressing that would not return "should peel" when the normal heuristic would not peeling. But that's the only difference. I was trying to get closer from a natural (no stress) example, but at the end, it ended up being too similar to stressing to be really conclusive about real world cases.
>
>> I mean that I went in the peeling policy to write conditions such as "first time, return 'no peeling' only the second time, run normally", to try to reproduce the right sequence on one particular input. So it's not very far of stressing: instead of deciding randomly, I hardcode in the C++ whether it should run normally or exit immediately for each call to the peeling policy. It's mostly useful for the case where the natural run would peel, but I don't want it to happen too early.
>> 
>> Unlike stressing that would not return "should peel" when the normal heuristic would not peeling. But that's the only difference. I was trying to get closer from a natural (no stress) example, but at the end, it ended up being too similar to stressing to be really conclusive about real world cases.
> 
> I see, thanks for the clarification.

Thanks! @robcasloz or @rwestrel do you want to give an updated opinion?

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27586#issuecomment-3435675670