On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 06:40:47 GMT, Harshit Dhiman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Port the Z garbage collector to s390. >> >> The tier1 test case are passing using `-XX:+UseZGC` flag >> >> --------- >> - [x] I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the >> [OpenJDK Interim AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai). > > Harshit Dhiman has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last revision: > > address review comments src/hotspot/cpu/s390/c1_CodeStubs_s390.cpp line 51: > 49: // Determine saved exception pc using pc relative address computation. > 50: { > 51: Label next_pc; Suggestion: NearLabel next_pc; src/hotspot/cpu/s390/interp_masm_s390.cpp line 521: > 519: z_lgf(Z_R0, Address(result, arrayOopDesc::length_offset_in_bytes())); > 520: z_sllg(Z_R0, Z_R0, LogBytesPerHeapOop); > 521: compare64_and_branch(index, Z_R0, Assembler::bcondLow, index_ok); Not your mistake, but in the below line the id "0x09256" wouldn't make it to the final error message. probably update it to "0x56" ? src/hotspot/cpu/s390/interp_masm_s390.cpp line 1090: > 1088: // that would normally not be safe to use. Such bad returns into > unsafe territory of > 1089: // the stack, will call InterpreterRuntime::at_unwind. > 1090: Label slow_path, fast_path; NearLabel for fast_path, slow_path may go out of bounds? src/hotspot/cpu/s390/jniFastGetField_s390.cpp line 41: > 39: #define __ masm-> > 40: > 41: #define BUFFER_SIZE 100*sizeof(jint) How did we came up with this number ? Are we following other architectures or it's s390x specific value you came up with trial-and-error. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/31984#discussion_r3854574502 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/31984#discussion_r3854842360 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/31984#discussion_r3854847903 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/31984#discussion_r3854878127
