Quantcast

RFR(M) 8179100: [AOT] Rewrite redundant initialization elimination

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

RFR(M) 8179100: [AOT] Rewrite redundant initialization elimination

Igor Veresov
Redundant initialization elimination can be rewritten using the dominator tree visitor pattern. This makes code much more readable. It also now handle the case of the dominating initialization of a subclass. And since now we have more time the phase requires a unit test.

Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iveresov/8179100/webrev.00
(It’s a complete rewrite, so don’t look at the diffs, they are messy).

I’ll be pushing this through graal-core and doing a graal update after that.

igor
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: RFR(M) 8179100: [AOT] Rewrite redundant initialization elimination

Vladimir Kozlov
On 4/21/17 1:55 PM, Igor Veresov wrote:
> Redundant initialization elimination can be rewritten using the dominator tree visitor pattern. This makes code much more readable. It also now handle the case of the dominating initialization of a subclass. And since now we have more time the phase requires a unit test.

I don't see unit test.

>
> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iveresov/8179100/webrev.00

Seems good. But I assume Graal guys will review it too.

> (It’s a complete rewrite, so don’t look at the diffs, they are messy).

Thank you for warning ;)

Thanks,
Vladimir

>
> I’ll be pushing this through graal-core and doing a graal update after that.
>
> igor
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: RFR(M) 8179100: [AOT] Rewrite redundant initialization elimination

Igor Veresov

> On Apr 21, 2017, at 3:27 PM, Vladimir Kozlov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 4/21/17 1:55 PM, Igor Veresov wrote:
>> Redundant initialization elimination can be rewritten using the dominator tree visitor pattern. This makes code much more readable. It also now handle the case of the dominating initialization of a subclass. And since now we have more time the phase requires a unit test.
>
> I don't see unit test.

Yeah, forgot it, webrev updated in-place.

igor

>
>>
>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iveresov/8179100/webrev.00
>
> Seems good. But I assume Graal guys will review it too.
>
>> (It’s a complete rewrite, so don’t look at the diffs, they are messy).
>
> Thank you for warning ;)
>
> Thanks,
> Vladimir
>
>>
>> I’ll be pushing this through graal-core and doing a graal update after that.
>>
>> igor
>>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: RFR(M) 8179100: [AOT] Rewrite redundant initialization elimination

Vladimir Kozlov
Okay.

Thanks,
Vladimir

On 4/21/17 3:57 PM, Igor Veresov wrote:

>
>> On Apr 21, 2017, at 3:27 PM, Vladimir Kozlov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On 4/21/17 1:55 PM, Igor Veresov wrote:
>>> Redundant initialization elimination can be rewritten using the dominator tree visitor pattern. This makes code much more readable. It also now handle the case of the dominating initialization of a subclass. And since now we have more time the phase requires a unit test.
>>
>> I don't see unit test.
>
> Yeah, forgot it, webrev updated in-place.
>
> igor
>
>>
>>>
>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iveresov/8179100/webrev.00
>>
>> Seems good. But I assume Graal guys will review it too.
>>
>>> (It’s a complete rewrite, so don’t look at the diffs, they are messy).
>>
>> Thank you for warning ;)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vladimir
>>
>>>
>>> I’ll be pushing this through graal-core and doing a graal update after that.
>>>
>>> igor
>>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: RFR(M) 8179100: [AOT] Rewrite redundant initialization elimination

Igor Veresov
Tom suggested to use data flow to do this. Otherwise I was missing the case when initialization happen on both paths of a diamond.
So, no scheduling this time, only walking the control flow.


igor

On Apr 21, 2017, at 4:34 PM, Vladimir Kozlov <[hidden email]> wrote:

Okay.

Thanks,
Vladimir

On 4/21/17 3:57 PM, Igor Veresov wrote:

On Apr 21, 2017, at 3:27 PM, Vladimir Kozlov <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 4/21/17 1:55 PM, Igor Veresov wrote:
Redundant initialization elimination can be rewritten using the dominator tree visitor pattern. This makes code much more readable. It also now handle the case of the dominating initialization of a subclass. And since now we have more time the phase requires a unit test.

I don't see unit test.

Yeah, forgot it, webrev updated in-place.

igor



Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iveresov/8179100/webrev.00

Seems good. But I assume Graal guys will review it too.

(It’s a complete rewrite, so don’t look at the diffs, they are messy).

Thank you for warning ;)

Thanks,
Vladimir


I’ll be pushing this through graal-core and doing a graal update after that.

igor



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: RFR(M) 8179100: [AOT] Rewrite redundant initialization elimination

Vladimir Kozlov
Good.

Thanks,
Vladimir

On 4/25/17 10:38 AM, Igor Veresov wrote:

> Tom suggested to use data flow to do this. Otherwise I was missing the
> case when initialization happen on both paths of a diamond.
> So, no scheduling this time, only walking the control flow.
>
> Here’s the new
> review: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iveresov/8179100/webrev.01
>
> igor
>
>> On Apr 21, 2017, at 4:34 PM, Vladimir Kozlov
>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>> Okay.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vladimir
>>
>> On 4/21/17 3:57 PM, Igor Veresov wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Apr 21, 2017, at 3:27 PM, Vladimir Kozlov
>>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/21/17 1:55 PM, Igor Veresov wrote:
>>>>> Redundant initialization elimination can be rewritten using the
>>>>> dominator tree visitor pattern. This makes code much more readable.
>>>>> It also now handle the case of the dominating initialization of a
>>>>> subclass. And since now we have more time the phase requires a unit
>>>>> test.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see unit test.
>>>
>>> Yeah, forgot it, webrev updated in-place.
>>>
>>> igor
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iveresov/8179100/webrev.00
>>>>
>>>> Seems good. But I assume Graal guys will review it too.
>>>>
>>>>> (It’s a complete rewrite, so don’t look at the diffs, they are messy).
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for warning ;)
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Vladimir
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I’ll be pushing this through graal-core and doing a graal update
>>>>> after that.
>>>>>
>>>>> igor
>>>>>
>>>
>
Loading...