-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 231
8361117: SIGSEGV in LShiftLNode::Ideal due to unexpected dead node #4204
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
8361117: SIGSEGV in LShiftLNode::Ideal due to unexpected dead node #4204
Conversation
|
👋 Welcome back mdoerr! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into |
|
@TheRealMDoerr This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks. ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details. After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be: You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed. At the time when this comment was updated there had been 6 new commits pushed to the
As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details. ➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the |
|
This backport pull request has now been updated with the original issue, but not the original commit. If you have the original commit hash, please update the pull request title with |
Webrevs
|
|
@rwestrel: Do you want to review? |
rwestrel
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Otherwise, looks good to me.
|
|
||
| package compiler.c2; | ||
|
|
||
| public class Test8361117 { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you rename the test case? The usual guideline is to not name test cases based on the bug id but rather have a short descriptive name.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done. Please take a look.
rwestrel
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for making the change. Looks good to me.
|
|
|
Thanks for the review! |
|
/integrate |
|
Going to push as commit 58dab5e.
Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts. |
|
@TheRealMDoerr Pushed as commit 58dab5e. 💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored. |
This is a new fix for JDK-8361117 for OpenJDK. I can't see the corresponding fix because it's not public.
This fix is taken from openjdk/jdk@05a0a71.
The problem is described in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/674cc3eeca77f1f2a6d937b1df5c5cd8a13c2d31/test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/arraycopy/TestACSameSrcDst.java#L87 but that regression test didn't reproduce the issue in jdk17u.
I've taken the reproducer from the issue and put it into a new regression test. The VM crashes without the fix and the test passes with the fix.
Progress
Issue
Reviewers
Reviewing
Using
gitCheckout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk17u-dev.git pull/4204/head:pull/4204$ git checkout pull/4204Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/4204$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk17u-dev.git pull/4204/headUsing Skara CLI tools
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 4204View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 4204Using diff file
Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk17u-dev/pull/4204.diff
Using Webrev
Link to Webrev Comment