Hi Aleksey & All, I have changed the "sneaky" code such that it now looks more "enterprise grade". Please find an updated webrev at Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lucy/webrevs/8211145.01/ Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8211145
Thanks, Lutz On 26.09.18, 18:21, "Schmidt, Lutz" <lutz.schm...@sap.com> wrote: On 26.09.18, 18:11, "Aleksey Shipilev" <sh...@redhat.com> wrote: On 09/26/2018 06:08 PM, Schmidt, Lutz wrote: > Hi Aleksey, > > you got me! I forgot to mention this one, sorry! With -Werror=switch, the compiler complains about line 131 in cpu/s390/assembler_s390.cpp: > > case bcondNotHigh + bcondNotOrdered : inverse_cc = bcondHigh; break; // 13 > > The resulting case label was not declared in the enum Assembler::branch_condition. Sneaky. Dear God. Can we please use the new enum constant in those case labels then? This would be a fun source of bugs otherwise if "bcondNotHigh + bcondNotOrdered" carries over some bits :) Sure. I will provide a new webrev first thing Thursday morning. Need to rush out now... Thanks, Lutz -Aleksey