A simple optimization proposal (original) (raw)

Vladimir Kozlov vladimir.kozlov at oracle.com
Wed Feb 12 15:33:46 PST 2014

Kris,

Can you submit formal review request as changes for 8003585 with webrev on cr.openjdk?

Note, you can't return return phase->intcon(1) from Ideal() because we need new node. Return ConINode::make(phase->C, 1) instead.

Thanks, Vladimir

On 2/12/14 3:05 PM, Krystal Mok wrote:

Hi Vladimir,

Thanks for looking at it. I added the other cases and added a missing condition check. The patch is updated in place: https://gist.github.com/rednaxelafx/8964030 Ran a few small cases on case 1 and 3 manually and the resulting IR graphs were right. I wasn't able to check the case 2 ("Change ((x & m) u<= m) to always true") though, I don't know what Java code could be compiled into that pattern. Thanks, Kris

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Vladimir Kozlov <vladimir.kozlov at oracle.com <mailto:vladimir.kozlov at oracle.com>> wrote: Looks reasonable. Kris, you need also look for other patterns listed in JDK-8003585. Thanks, Vladimir On 2/12/14 12:39 PM, Krystal Mok wrote: Hi Martin and John, I did a quick-and-dirty patch and it seems to work: https://gist.github.com/_rednaxelafx/8964030 <https://gist.github.com/rednaxelafx/8964030> If it looks right then I'll refactor that code a little bit and send it in for official review. - Kris On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:17 AM, John Rose <john.r.rose at oracle.com <mailto:john.r.rose at oracle.com> <mailto:john.r.rose at oracle.com_ _<mailto:john.r.rose at oracle.com>>> wrote:_ It's totally reasonable, and is already filed as an RFE (please comment on it!): https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/_browse/JDK-8003585 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8003585> — John On Feb 12, 2014, at 9:40 AM, Martin Grajcar <maaartinus at gmail.com <mailto:maaartinus at gmail.com> <mailto:maaartinus at gmail.com_ _<mailto:maaartinus at gmail.com>>> wrote: Most hash tables are power-of-two sized so that they can use masking for the access. It looks like the bounds check doesn't get eliminated, although it could be. Based on the equivalence |a[x & (a.length - 1)]| throws if and only if |a.length == 0|, I'm proposing this simple algorithm: * For each array access, check if the index has been computed via a bitwise and. * If so, check if either of the operands was computed as length minus one. * If so, replace the bounds check by a zero-length check. This zero-length check can then be easily moved out of the loop by the existing optimizations. I hope I'm not talking non-sense. For more details see http://stackoverflow.com/_questions/21702939/why-the-_bounds-check-doesnt-get-_eliminated <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/21702939/why-the-bounds-check-doesnt-get-eliminated> Regards, Martin.

More information about the hotspot-compiler-dev mailing list