RFR: 8370332: C2 SuperWord: SIGSEGV because PhaseIdealLoop::split_thru_phi left dead nodes in loop _body [v2]

[Emanuel Peter]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 16:30:24 GMT, Emanuel Peter <epeter at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Analysis:
>> `split_thru_phi` can split a node out of the loop, through some loop phi. As a consequence, that node and the phi we split through can become dead. But `split_thru_phi` did not have any logic to yank the dead node and phi from the `_body`. If this happens in the same loop-opts-phase as a later SuperWord, and that SuperWord pass somehow accesses that loop `_body`, then we may find dead nodes, which is not expected.
>> 
>> It is not ok that `split_thru_phi` leaves dead nodes in the `_body`, so they have to be yanked.
>> 
>> What I did additionally: I went through all uses of `split_thru_phi`, and moved the `replace_node` from the call-site to the method itself. Removing the node and yanking from `_body` conceptually belongs together, so they should be together in code.
>> 
>> I suspect that `split_thru_phi` was broken for a long time already. But JDK26 changes in SuperWord started to check inputs of all nodes in `_body`, and that fails with dead nodes.
>> 
>> Future Work:
>> - Continue work on making `VerifyLoopOptimizations` work again, we should assert that there are no dead nodes in the `_body`. We may do that with the following task, or a subsequent one.
>>   - [JDK-8370332](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8370332) Fix VerifyLoopOptimizations - step 3 - fix ctrl/loop
>
> Emanuel Peter has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   allow unique out with multiple uses

@rwestrel I tried to find a reproducer that crashes the same way, but I could not make it work.

Still: I now adjusted the code and I think it should work. But we would only really get confidence once I continue work on `VerifyLoopOptimizations`, for example checking that there are no dead nodes in `_body`.

Are you ok with this? Any other suggestions?

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27955#issuecomment-3457401349