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
8247357: Flattenable field concept needs some cleanup #77
Conversation
|
@fparain This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks, type
There are currently no new commits on the
|
@fparain this pull request can not be integrated into git checkout flattenable_squashed2
git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/valhalla lworld
git merge FETCH_HEAD
# resolve conflicts and follow the instructions given by git merge
git commit -m "Merge lworld"
git push |
Mailing list message from John Rose on valhalla-dev: On Jun 10, 2020, at 11:55 AM, Frederic Parain <fparain at openjdk.java.net> wrote:
I?m glad to see occurrences of ?value? go away in favor of ?inline?. (The language gurus won?t absolutely promise that ?inline? is the The ?is_flattenable? bit was often accompanied by an ?is_flattened? The term ?is_inline? is ambiguous when reading the code. Where there So I suggest: s/is_flattenable/is_declared_inline/ Maybe that?s overkill? But I think just ?is_inline? is not clear enough. ? John |
Mailing list message from John Rose on valhalla-dev: On Jun 10, 2020, at 12:30 PM, John Rose <john.r.rose at oracle.com> wrote:
To be clear: I?m not suggesting that systematically, just where In the CFP, ?has_flattenable_fields? could go either way, but I think |
Mailing list message from John Rose on valhalla-dev: [consolidate and resend after name fix] On Jun 10, 2020, at 11:55 AM, Frederic Parain <fparain at openjdk.java.net> wrote:
I?m glad to see occurrences of ?value? go away in favor of ?inline?. (The language gurus won?t absolutely promise that ?inline? is the The ?is_flattenable? bit was often accompanied by an ?is_flattened? The term ?is_inline? is ambiguous when reading the code. Where there So I suggest: s/is_flattenable/is_declared_inline/ Maybe that?s overkill? But I think just ?is_inline? is not clear enough. ? John P.S. To be clear: I?m not suggesting that systematically, just where In the CFP, ?has_flattenable_fields? could go either way, but I think |
Mailing list message from Frederic Parain on valhalla-dev: John, Thank you for looking at these changes. ?is_inline? might be confusing in the sense that it can be interpreted To prevent the confusion, I would propose to change ?is_inline? to And to have similar names, we would follow your suggestion and So: and Would these new names address the concerns you have? Regards, Fred
|
Mailing list message from John Rose on valhalla-dev: On Jun 10, 2020, at 1:12 PM, Frederic Parain <frederic.parain at oracle.com> wrote:
Yes, that?s great. Tiny tweak: I suggest ?is_allocated_inline?, |
Mailing list message from Frederic Parain on valhalla-dev: Sure, ?is_allocated_inline? (the ?d? at the end was a typo, Thank you, Fred
|
Mailing list message from Tobias Hartmann on valhalla-dev: Just wondering if "is_inlined()" wouldn't be an option as well? "Allocated" sounds like there is Best regards, On 10.06.20 22:35, Frederic Parain wrote:
|
+1
|
OK, after another round of renaming:
Both expression are close, and can easily be found together with grep. I've tried to fix all the comments to align them with the new names of methods and fields. The term "flattened" is still used for arrays. |
Hi Fred,
The changes look good. One minor misspelling in templateTable_x86.cpp, "fiel" instead of "field".
Also, should JVM_ACC_FIELD_INLINED be 4000 instead of 8000?
Thanks, Harold
Harold, Thank you for reviewing this. I've fixed the typo and changed back the value of JVM_ACC_FIELD_INLINED (it doesn't make a difference right now, but there's no reason to change it). Fred |
/integrate |
Please review these changes cleaning up the flattenable field concept.
The concept has evolved with time and now all fields with an inline type are by definition flattenable, so the need to have a "flattenable bit" on the side is gone. The changeset contains a mix of renaming and code cleaning.
The changes don't include JIT code, which would be fix in a follow-up patch.
Thank you,
Fred
Progress
Issue
Reviewers
Download
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/valhalla pull/77/head:pull/77
$ git checkout pull/77