On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 09:01:43 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore <mcimadam...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> I had something like that, but another reviewer didn't like it, either. >> Originally, I had thought that the v1 and v2 CallArrangers would get more >> content, but they're still empty. Would it be better to remove these special >> CallArrangers and distinguish in the base class? > > It seems to me that what you are doing is similar to what was done for > aarch64, which was dealt with using very simple subclasses: > https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/foreign/abi/aarch64/linux/LinuxAArch64CallArranger.java > https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/foreign/abi/aarch64/macos/MacOsAArch64CallArranger.java > https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/foreign/abi/aarch64/windows/WindowsAArch64CallArranger.java > > In your case there's less difference, but I think we should follow the same > idiom for both. Makes sense. I've changed it with the 2nd commit. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15417#discussion_r1305495063
