On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 11:05:48 GMT, Emanuel Peter <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> > FYI: `BoolTest::negate` already does what you want: `mask negate( ) const
>>> > { return mask(_test^4); }` I think you should use that instead :)
>>>
>>> Indeed, I hadn't noticed that, thank you.
>>
>> Oh I think we still cannot use `BoolTest::negate`, because we cannot
>> instantiate a `BoolTest` object with **unsigned** comparison.
>> `BoolTest::negate` is a non-static function.
>
>> Oh I think we still cannot use `BoolTest::negate`, because we cannot
>> instantiate a `BoolTest` object with **unsigned** comparison.
>> `BoolTest::negate` is a non-static function.
>
> I see. Ok. Hmm. I still think that the logic should be in `BoolTest`, because
> that is where the exact implementation of the enum values is. In that context
> it is easier to see why `^4` does the negation. And imagine we were ever to
> change the enum values, then it would be harder to find your code and fix it.
>
> Maybe it could be called `BoolTest::negate_mask(mast btm)` and explain in a
> comment that both signed and unsigned is supported.
Hi @eme64 @theRealAph @XiaohongGong @fg1417 @shqking , could you help take a
look at this PR, thanks
-------------
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24674#issuecomment-3248596662
