8374180: C2 crash in PhaseCCP::verify_type - fatal error: Not monotonic #28952
+78
−14
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hi,
The issue here is the inconsistency in computing the
_widenfield of theTypeInt. At the first step, the types of the operands are:Since the type of the first operand is a constant zero,
AddNode::Valuereturns the type of the second operand directly, asx ^ 0 == x for all x. In the second step,t1is widened to0..2. This triggers the real computation of the result. The algorithm then splitst2intot21 = int:-2..-1andt22 = int:0..3. TheXorof these witht1arer1 = int:-4..-1andr2 = int:0..3. As both have_hi - _lo <= SMALL_TYPEINT_THRESHOLD == 3, their_widens are normalized to0. As a result, theirmeetalso has_widen == 0. This value is smaller than that from the previous step, which was3, which leads to the failure.The root cause here is that, the
_widenvalue of a node should be computed and normalized on the whole range of the node, not on its subranges, which may normalize it to0in more cases than what is expected. As a result, my proposed solution is to ignore the_widenvalue of the subranges, and pass the expected_widenvalue when composing the final result.Please take a look and leave your reviews, thanks a lot.
Progress
Issue
Reviewing
Using
gitCheckout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/28952/head:pull/28952$ git checkout pull/28952Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/28952$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/28952/headUsing Skara CLI tools
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 28952View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 28952Using diff file
Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28952.diff
Using Webrev
Link to Webrev Comment