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

Roland Westrelin roland.westrelin at oracle.com
Tue Jul 28 18:26:33 UTC 2015

Thanks for looking at this, Vladimir.

The next change puzzles me:

- if (!call->maymodify(tinst, phase)) { + if (call->maymodify(tinst, phase)) { - mem = call->in(TypeFunc::Memory); + assert(call->isArrayCopy(), "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?

I ran:

java/lang, java/util, compiler, closed, runtime, gc jtreg tests nsk.stress, vm.compiler, vm.regression, nsk.regression, nsk.monitoring from ute jprt

I’m not sure if I did CTW or not but I can if you think it makes sense.

Aren’t arguments of calls marked as ArgEscape so an object that is an argument to a call cannot be scalar replaced?

Methods naming is confusing. membarforarraycopy() does not check for membar but for calls which can modify. handlearraycopy() could be makearraycopyload().

Add explicit check: && strcmp(name, "unsafearraycopy") != 0)

Thanks for the suggestions. I’ll make the suggested changes.

Roland.

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.

More information about the hotspot-compiler-dev mailing list