On Wed, 13 May 2026 12:55:31 GMT, Tobias Hartmann <[email protected]> wrote:

> The original failure was in `test21` from 
> `compiler/valhalla/inlinetypes/TestNullableInlineTypes.java#id5`. I extracted 
> it into a standalone reproducer.
> 
> C2 asserts in `InlineTypeNode::field_value_by_offset` while looking up a 
> field value by offset. The lookup reaches a flat field whose corresponding 
> input is already `TOP`. This happens on the normal return path from `test2()` 
> in `test()`. That path is dead because `test2()` always throws a 
> `NullPointerException` when it tries to initialize a null restricted field 
> with null. We only "know" this after incremental inlining though.
> 
> So at this point, with `-XX:+StressIGVN`, the impossible control path has not 
> been removed yet, but the data path has already started dying: field values 
> on the dead `InlineTypeNode` have been replaced by `TOP`. 
> `InlineTypeNode::field_value_by_offset` already accounts for this with a 
> `value->is_top()` check, but the offset assert in that case is too strict.
> 
> In this reproducer, the lookup is recursive: it asks for a field inside a 
> flat field whose value is already `TOP`. Therefore, the requested offset is 
> the offset of a nested field within the flattened payload, while 
> `field->offset_in_bytes()` is the offset of the enclosing flat field. Those 
> offsets are not expected to match.
> 
> I adjusted the assert accordingly.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tobias
> 
> ---------
> - [x] I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the [OpenJDK 
> Interim AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai).

src/hotspot/share/opto/inlinetypenode.cpp line 232:

> 230:   assert(!field->is_flat() || field->type()->is_inlinetype(), "must be 
> an inline type");
> 231: 
> 232:   if (!recursive || !field->is_flat() || value->is_top()) {

This looks a bit cluttered, can we move `if (value->is_top())` into a separate 
case before this `if` instead?

-------------

PR Review Comment: 
https://git.openjdk.org/valhalla/pull/2433#discussion_r3234619223

Reply via email to