Skip to content

Conversation

@coleenp
Copy link
Contributor

@coleenp coleenp commented Jan 3, 2025

This change removes FORMAT64_MODIFIER but adds another INT64_FORMAT_X_0_ macro to specify not having leading "0x" in the output. Suggestions for better macro name welcome.
GHA tested.


Progress

  • Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
  • Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
  • Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

  • JDK-8329549: Remove FORMAT64_MODIFIER (Enhancement - P4)

Reviewers

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/22918/head:pull/22918
$ git checkout pull/22918

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/22918
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/22918/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 22918

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 22918

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22918.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

bridgekeeper bot commented Jan 3, 2025

👋 Welcome back coleenp! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jan 3, 2025

@coleenp 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:

8329549: Remove FORMAT64_MODIFIER

Reviewed-by: dholmes, kbarrett

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 33 new commits pushed to the master branch:

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 master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jan 3, 2025

@coleenp The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

  • hotspot

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the hotspot hotspot-dev@openjdk.org label Jan 3, 2025
@coleenp coleenp marked this pull request as ready for review January 6, 2025 16:11
@openjdk openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Jan 6, 2025
@mlbridge
Copy link

mlbridge bot commented Jan 6, 2025

Webrevs

Comment on lines 135 to 136
// Format without leading 0x
#define INT64_FORMAT_X_0_ "%016" PRIx64
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why the trailing underscore?

The name doesn't make sense to me given we have UINT64_FORMAT_X_0 and the only difference here is the leading 0x which doesn't really have anything to do with signed-ness. Maybe RAW_UINT64_FORMAT_X_0 to indicate the dropped 0x prefix ?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the suggestion. All the macros start with UINT64_FORMAT though. How about UINT64_FORMAT_RAW_X_0 ? or UINT64_FORMAT_X_0_RAW ? Still not great.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

UINT64_FORMAT_RAW_X_0 is not terrible. :)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To be honest though I don't know why we want hexadecimal output without the leading 0x ...

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The _X infix is meant to indicate 0x. I think UINT64_FORMAT_0 is what you are looking for.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I thought X was hexadecimal. That's a lot better. Thanks.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

// Guide to the suffixes used in the format specifiers for integers:
//        - print the decimal value:                   745565
//  _X    - print as hexadecimal, without leading 0s: 0x12345
//  _X_0  - print as hexadecimal, with leading 0s: 0x00012345

It wasn't obvious to me that the _X meant hexadecimal-with-0x-prefix versus simply hexadecimal. But I have no issue with always doing 0x :)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm. You are right. I read too much into the comment (that I wrote some time ago :) )

Copy link
Member

@dholmes-ora dholmes-ora left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That looks good to me. Thanks

@openjdk openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Jan 7, 2025
@coleenp
Copy link
Contributor Author

coleenp commented Jan 7, 2025

Thanks for reviewing, David.

Copy link

@kimbarrett kimbarrett left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good.

@coleenp
Copy link
Contributor Author

coleenp commented Jan 7, 2025

Thanks for the review Kim.

@coleenp
Copy link
Contributor Author

coleenp commented Jan 7, 2025

/integrate

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jan 7, 2025

Going to push as commit ddb5881.
Since your change was applied there have been 33 commits pushed to the master branch:

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Jan 7, 2025
@openjdk openjdk bot closed this Jan 7, 2025
@openjdk openjdk bot removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Jan 7, 2025
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jan 7, 2025

@coleenp Pushed as commit ddb5881.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.

@coleenp coleenp deleted the format64 branch January 7, 2025 23:33
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

hotspot hotspot-dev@openjdk.org integrated Pull request has been integrated

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants