Fine. But as we discussed you need to verify that invar.clone() does not have any side effects.

Thanks,
Vladimir

Tom Rodriguez wrote:
That's what I get for doing edits just before generating the webrev. I'd originally deleted the clone since it seems useless. If it's invariant then cloning it doesn't change anything. I chickened out at the last minuted and restored but didn't recompile. I think I'll stick with deleting it. I've regenerated the webrev.

tom
On Mar 12, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:

Tom,

You removed lines 2225,2226 but where ctrl node comes from for next line?:

2243 ld_rng = (LoadRangeNode*)invar.clone(ld_rng, ctrl);

Thanks,
Vladimir

Tom Rodriguez wrote:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~never/6930043
6930043: C2: SIGSEGV in javasoft.sqe.tests.lang.arr017.arr01702.arr01702.loop_forw(II)I
Reviewed-by:
The new loop predication code is missing logic to test that the
initial value of the index is in range. In many cases will be
eliminated statically. Tested with failing test. Also tested that
this new test doesn't affect the performance improvement we were
seeing with scimark.
src/share/vm/opto/loopTransform.cpp
test/compiler/6930043/Test6930043.java

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts

Previous

Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 4 of 12 | next ›
Discussion Overview
grouphotspot-compiler-dev @
categoriesopenjdk
postedMar 12, '10 at 10:37a
activeMar 17, '10 at 10:36a
posts12
users2
websiteopenjdk.java.net

2 users in discussion

Vladimir Kozlov: 6 posts Tom Rodriguez: 6 posts

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase