RFR(M): 8130847: Cloned object's fields observed as null after C2 escape analysis (original) (raw)

Vladimir Kozlov vladimir.kozlov at oracle.com
Tue Jul 28 16:29:50 UTC 2015

• Previous message: RFR(M): 8130847: Cloned object's fields observed as null after C2 escape analysis
• Next message: RFR(M): 8130847: Cloned object's fields observed as null after C2 escape analysis
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

The next change puzzles me:

•     if (!call->may_modify(tinst, phase)) {

•     if (call->may_modify(tinst, phase)) {

•       mem = call->in(TypeFunc::Memory);

•       assert(call->is_ArrayCopy(), "ArrayCopy is the only call

node that doesn't make allocation escape");

Why only ArrayCopy? I think it is most of calls. What set of tests you ran?

Methods naming is confusing. membar_for_arraycopy() does not check for membar but for calls which can modify. handle_arraycopy() could be make_arraycopy_load().

Add explicit check: && strcmp(_name, "unsafe_arraycopy") != 0)

Thanks, Vladimir

On 7/28/15 7:05 AM, Roland Westrelin wrote:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~roland/8130847/webrev.00/

When an allocation which is the destination of an ArrayCopyNode is eliminated, field’s values recorded at a safepoint (to reallocate the object) do not take the ArrayCopyNode into account at all and the effect or the ArrayCopyNode is lost on a deoptimization. This fix records values from the source of the ArrayCopyNode, emitting new loads if necessary. I also use the opportunity to pin the loads generated in LoadNode::canseearraycopyvalue() because they depend on all checks that validate the array copy and not only on the check that immediately dominates. Roland.

• Previous message: RFR(M): 8130847: Cloned object's fields observed as null after C2 escape analysis
• Next message: RFR(M): 8130847: Cloned object's fields observed as null after C2 escape analysis
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

More information about the hotspot-compiler-dev mailing list