On Tue, 12 May 2026 15:36:32 GMT, Marc Chevalier <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Tobias Hartmann has updated the pull request incrementally with one >> additional commit since the last revision: >> >> Fixed check > > I think we agree on what I called unconsistencies, but after that, I'm more > puzzled. Indeed, we cannot assume the checkcast will pass, but if we can show > it doesn't, we already know these nodes must be dead. I suppose right now, we > are waiting for the condition to remove them later during the same IGVN by > finding out that `C` never allows this branch to be taken. But I wonder > whether we could be more aggressive and remove them now, so that we don't > need to be able to simplify `C` (or alternatively, we can see it as another > way to prove a path is dead). Isn't it similar to something Roland did? @marc-chevalier do you mean this? https://github.com/openjdk/valhalla/blob/f39fa97e6905c6cad790b97aad663b6a4e2040a2/src/hotspot/share/opto/node.cpp#L3215-L3222 ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/valhalla/pull/2423#issuecomment-4432603694
