Request for reviews (XS): 6843752: missing code for an anti-dependent Phi in GCM
Thomas.Rodriguez at Sun.COM
Wed May 27 10:18:07 PDT 2009
Based on the old code that case definitely seems needed and I believe
I follow the logic enough to think that it would end up handling it
the same as the old code. Looks good.
On May 27, 2009, at 9:31 AM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> Fixed 6843752: missing code for an anti-dependent Phi in GCM
> Changes for 6470497 (part G) incorrectly removed the code
> for anti-dependent PHI pinned below load's 'early' block.
> As result the load placed below this phi into the block with
> lowest frequency and a wrong value is loaded.
> In the test case the load placed inside loop which modifies
> the loaded value to NULL. As result we got NULL exception.
> Don't place a load below anti-dependent PHI.
> Added the regression test modified to show the problem
> in latest VM (the loop body executed less time then
> the code before the loop).
> Reviewed by:
> Fix verified (y/n): y, bug's test
> Other testing:
More information about the hotspot-compiler-dev